PRIME MINISTER

Electronic Databases

Alan Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the electronic databases created for No. 10 Downing Street since June 1997 for the purpose of storing parliamentary questions and answers, stating in each case (a) the office or unit concerned, (b) who has access to it, (c) the software employed and (d) the date and cost of its creation.

Tony Blair: The No. 10 parliamentary section uses the same database software that was used under previous Administrations, and uses it according to the rules in the civil service code.
	All my staff have access to a general information database which includes parliamentary questions for ease of reference and was established in 2000 at no additional cost to my office.

European-Latin American/Caribbean Summit

Richard Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Second European-Latin American and Caribbean Summit.

Tony Blair: I attended the EU-Latin American and Caribbean Summit in Madrid on 17 May, with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
	The summit was a significant further step towards closer relations with Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean. We discussed important issues, notably terrorism and sustainable development, which affect us all and on which inter-regional co-operation is essential. The summit also made good progress on liberalising trade between Europe and Latin America, welcoming completion of negotiations on an EU/Chile Association Agreement, and agreeing to press forward with an EU/Mercosur Association Agreement. In addition, the summit decided to take concrete new steps in the development of EU/Andean and EU/central American relations.
	I was also pleased to see Caribbean concerns recognised—the result of effective engagement in the summit and its preparations by many Caribbean countries. We have worked with the Caribbean to ensure that they are now playing a full part in the summit and that their voice is heard.

Establishment Responsibilities

Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have lead responsibility for (a)(i) Royal, (ii) Church and (iii) hereditary issues and (b) lords- lieutenant.

Tony Blair: In England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor's Department has lead responsibility for these matters. Lords-lieutenant and certain Church and royal household posts are Crown appointments and are therefore made by Her Majesty the Queen on my advice.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Prime Minister what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Tony Blair: I have made no such appointments.

Gibraltar

John MacDougall: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Spanish Prime Minister to discuss Gibraltar.

Tony Blair: I met the Spanish Prime Minister on 20 May for discussions on a range of EU and foreign policy issues. We held talks on Gibraltar in a positive and constructive atmosphere.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on propagating material and ornamental plants is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The mandate of the Standing Committee on propagating material of ornamental plants is to consider and adopt measures to facilitate implementation of Council Directive 98/56/EC on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants. The committee has met on three occasions over the last 12 months. The UK is normally represented by an official from my Department. The cost of the committee's work to public funds, including travel expenses which are met from Community funds, is estimated at around £1,500 annually.
	Agendas and reports of meetings are available on the Commission website. Links to those reports are provided in the DEFRA website at http://defraweb/planth/ oldnews.htm#links. The agenda of the last meeting included: discussions about the scope of the directive; whether further implementing measures were needed in relation to specific pests and diseases; the approach in relation to imports from third countries and future arrangements for Community trials which are used to take stock of the quality of materials being marketed within the Community. The committee also had an initial discussion to consider how to take forward work in relation to a recently adopted standard under the International Plant Protection Convention concerning Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	The Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final).

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for Community protection of plant variety rights is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The mandate of the Committee for Community protection of plant variety rights is to assist the Commission in the administration and regulation of Community plant variety rights. The committee has met once over the past 12 months. The cost of representation by one official was de minimis as it was held on the same day as another meeting.
	The item discussed was the preparation of a report in accordance with Article 116(4) of Council Regulation (EC) 2100/94 on an arrangement which permitted individual farmers who had farm saved seed of varieties established before the Community plant variety rights regime came into force to continue to do so free of charge for a transitional period.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
	As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on plant health is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The mandate of the Standing Committee on Plant Health (harmful organisms) is contained within Council Directive 2000/29 concerning protective measures against the introduction into and spread within the Community of organisms harmful to plants and plant products. The committee gives opinions on amendments to the lists of harmful organisms, on other amendments to the technical annexes to the directive, and on proposed emergency measures against new plant health risks. The committee has met eleven times in the last twelve months. The UK is usually represented by an official and a scientist from my Department assisted by a Forestry Commission official when necessary.
	The direct cost of the committee's work to public funds, including travel expenses some of which are met from Community funds, is estimated at around £40,000 annually. UK risk assessments and survey results are presented to the committee but these are prepared partly to inform national policy and operational activities. The elements directly related to the work of the committee cannot be separately costed.
	Agendas and reports of meetings are available on the Commission website. Links to those reports are provided in the DEFRA website at http://defraweb/planth/ oldnews.htm#links. The agenda of the last meeting included: a discussion, at the UK's request, of the situation with Phytophthora ramorum (cause of Sudden Oak Death) in the Community; a report on progress with eradication of pinewood nematode in Portugal; discussion of measures to be taken against an outbreak of Monilinia fructicola (fruit brown rot) in France; consideration of a response to measures taken by China against wooden packing material with exports from the EC; and discussion of a risk assessment on Aphelenchoides besseyi, a nematode which affects rice seed and strawberry plants.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	The Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final).

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Standing Committee on propagating material and plants of fruit genera and species is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The mandate of the Standing Committee on propagating material and plants of fruit genera and species is to consider and adopt measures to facilitate implementation of Council Directive 92/34/EEC on the marketing of fruit propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production. The committee has met on three occasions over the last 12 months. The UK is normally represented by an official from my Department. The cost of the committee's work to public funds, including travel expenses which are met from Community funds, is estimated at around £2,500 annually.
	Agendas and reports of meetings are available on the Commission website. Links to those reports are provided in the DEFRA website at http://defraweb/planth/ oldnews.htm#links. The agenda of the last meeting included: discussions about the effectiveness of current implementing measures; the scope of those measures and whether additional rules were needed; the approach in relation to imports from third countries and future arrangements for Community trials which are used to take stock of the quality of material being marketed within the Community. The committee also had an initial discussion to consider how to take forward work in relation to a recently adopted standard under the International Plant Protection Convention concerning Regulated Non- Quarantine Pests.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". The Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final).

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the Fisheries and Aquaculture sector is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture was set up to enable the Commission to consult representatives of the EU fishery products and aquaculture industry, and of related interests such as consumers and environmentalists, and to take their views on the drafting and implementation of relevant EU measures. It is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government. The questions raised would be for the European Commission, or for the European organisations who send representatives, to answer.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: This committee has never met. Therefore the question of UK representation has not been addressed, no items are under consideration and it has not drawn on public funds. The role of the Committee, if it should meet, is set out in article 12 of the Directive. It is to deliver its opinion on amendments proposed by the Commission to the G values and to the methods of analysis set out in the Annexes to the Directive where amendments are necessary to adapt the Directive's provisions to technical or scientific progress. The Committee has equivalent functions in relation to Directive 79/923/EC on the quality required of Shellfish Waters.
	Together with Member States, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". Consequent to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final.
	As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on veterinary training is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Veterinary Training (ACVT) was held on 16 June 2000 and it was abolished later that year.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for seeds is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The mandate of the Seeds Management Committee is to facilitate stability in the market for seeds and to ensure a fair income for producers through the payment of appropriate levels of production aid. The Committee has met four times over the past 12 months. UK representation at the Committee has been two officials for each meeting, and the cost of representation has been around £5,300.
	The major item under discussion this year has been the introduction of a stabiliser mechanism to constrain EU expenditure on seed production aid.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
	As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001) 783 Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the supply of agricultural products to the population of the former Soviet Union is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Department has no record of such a committee.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The purpose of the Committee on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture is to advise the Commission draft measures made under Council Regulation 1467–94 on:
	(a) assisting the co-ordination, at Community level, of certain national measures for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture to permit the rational organisation of the means employed within the Community and the efficient utilisation of the results and to achieve an approach in line with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy;
	(b) the development and implementation of programmes of measures for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture at Community level to support or supplement action taken in the member states; and
	(c) other relevant questions.
	Regulation 1467–94 established a programme for the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture for a period of five years. The Commission has made proposals for a successor regulation, which is currently under consideration.
	The Committee met once in the last 12 months. It was attended by DEFRA officials from my Department. The cost of representation at that meeting and related work was about £2,000.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". The Commission published an annual report on the working of such committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final)). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: I have been asked to reply.
	The Scientific and Technical Research Committee (CREST) is a standing advisory committee to the Council and Commission which was established pursuant to a Council Resolution of 14 January 1974 on the co-ordination of national policies and the definition of projects of interest to the Community in the field of science and technology.
	A Council Resolution of 28 September 1995 defined the current role of CREST:
	(i) to identify strategic priorities for Community policy, based on the criterion of added value while complying with the principle of subsidiarity, thereby helping the Commission to draw up Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes;
	(ii) to promote co-ordination by the Community and the member states of their RTD activities in order to ensure mutual consistency between national policies and Community policy;
	(iii) to review the independent assessment of the specific programmes and the framework programme, relying in particular on the programme committees, in order to learn useful lessons from them for Community RTD policy;
	(iv) to contribute to the formulation of Community strategy for international co-operation in the sphere of research, including consultation within the Community in preparation for the proceedings of international bodies.
	CREST also devotes itself to the following activities:
	(v) dissemination and exploitation of the results of RTD and demonstration activities and of their impact on competitiveness and employment in the Community;
	(vi) training activities through and for research and their response to innovation needs.
	The CREST Committee discharges its functions either at the request of the Council or the Commission or on its own initiative. It comprises senior representatives responsible for RTD policies in the member states and of Commission representatives and is chaired by the Director General, Directorate General Research. The General Secretariat of the Council provides the secretariat for CREST. Since 2001 Candidate Countries to the European Union have been invited to attend as observers. CREST draws up it own rules of procedure and work programme. Records of meeting and opinions of CREST record the consensual opinion of its members, with reference to any minority views. They are forwarded to the Council and the Commission. CREST's work, reports and other documentation are publicly available. (http://register.consilium.eu.int)
	CREST has met on eight occasions over the last 12 months:
	275th CREST, 4 May 2001—Brussels
	276th CREST, 31 May to 1 June 2001—Sweden
	277th CREST, 5 July 2001—Brussels
	278th CREST, 6 to 7 September 2001—Belgium
	279th CREST, 18 to 19 October 2001—Brussels
	280th CREST, 22 to 23 November 2001—Brussels
	281st CREST, 8 February 2002—Brussels
	282nd CREST, 26 to 27 March 2002—Spain.
	Officials from the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry provide the UK representation. The UK usually sends two delegates to meetings of this committee, which are held either in Brussels or in the country holding the EU presidency. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	Items under current consideration for the next meeting include the Implementation of the Commission Action Plan on Science and Society, and the opening of national RTD programmes.
	The agenda fro the next meeting of the committee includes the following issues:
	Company Awards and List of Best Workplaces in Europe
	Scheme to support transnational actions to combat discrimination
	Presentations and discussions on data collection to measure the extent and impact of discrimination
	Presentation of work programme of two groups of independent experts on racial discrimination, and on discrimination against people with disabilities
	Presentation of work programme of four European-level umbrella NGO networks.
	An evaluation of the programme will be reported to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A copy of the evaluation report will be placed in the Libraries of the House once available.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees in line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission."
	As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Committee for the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: I have been asked to reply.
	The mandate of the Standing Committee is contained in Article 18 of the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors Directive, 2000/14/EC. In essence it is convened to consider matters of interpretation which are brought to its attention by member states. It has, however only met in its capacity as an advisory committee. Officials of the European Commission chair these meetings with a view to providing advice based on consensus in order to ensure that there is uniform interpretation of the directive throughout the European Union and also to ensure that any technical barriers to trade within the Single Market are removed. The committee, in particular, assists the Commission in the adaptation to technical progress of methods of measurement of airborne noise emitted by equipment for use outdoors by means of amendments to the technical annexes of the directive.
	In the last 12 months this committee has met twice. Representation from the United Kingdom is led by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	Items under consideration vary from meeting to meeting but usually include issues of standardisation and interpretation. Current issues include a possible amendment to the directive in respect of noise limits of lawn mowers.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Genetically Modified Foods

Colin Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research (a) her Department and (b) its predecessors have undertaken in the last five years to assess and measure the commercial impact of genetically modified foodstuffs; and if she will place copies in the Library.

Elliot Morley: Neither DEFRA nor its predecessors have undertaken any research on the commercial impact of GM foods.

Consultation Documents

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many consultation documents and consultative drafts of legislation have been issued by her Department since January 2001; and what proportion of these have observed Criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation.

Elliot Morley: The following table shows up-to-date information regarding consultation documents issued by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 1 January 2001.
	
		
			  Number of consultations issued % of consultations observing Criterion 5 
		
		
			 1 January to 31 December 2001 50 50 
			 1 January 2002 to date 29 69 
			  
			 Total 79 57

Correspondence

David Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Eastleigh dated 18 March, regarding the funding for supply chain companies constructing the A380.

Elliot Morley: I am sorry, but we are unable to trace the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member.
	As the correspondence would appear to be on constructing the A380, a new wide body twin jet, perhaps this is a matter for the Department for Trade and Industry.

Correspondence

Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer on 19 April 2002, Official Report, columns 1192–93W, if she will investigate the whereabouts of the Bale Us Out correspondence.

Elliot Morley: As I have stated in my earlier reply to the hon. Member, we are unable to trace the correspondence referred to.
	I am sorry, but diverting resources in our correspondence section to investigating the whereabouts of this correspondence would not be cost-effective, as we have no record of having received your correspondence. If you send us another copy of your correspondence we will reply.

Over-30-months Scheme

Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of cattle presented to the over-30-months scheme were rejected for lack of proper document in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Elliot Morley: 1 per cent. of all animals entering the scheme during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 were rejected because of either documentation or animal ineligibility. Figures relating solely to the number of animals rejected because of documentation are not available.

Over-30-months Scheme

Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much over-30-months scheme compensation has been paid in each year since its inception.

Elliot Morley: The information requested is as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
		
		
			 1996–97 670 
			 1997–98 288 
			 1998–99 264 
			 1999–2000 265 
			 2000–01 240 
			 2001–02 185

Colorado Beetle

Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on steps being taken to prevent the spread of the Colorado beetle.

Elliot Morley: The United Kingdom has protected zone status for Colorado beetle, making it an offence for the beetle to be moved into the country. To support this the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate in England and Wales and the similar inspectorates in Scotland and Northern Ireland inspect imports of plants and plant produce to ensure that the beetle, as well as many other pests and diseases, are not present. Added to this is the long-running campaign to promote and maintain a high level of public awareness of the beetle. This is instrumental in ensuring that members of the public, as well as importers and port operators, report findings of the beetle. These measures have all helped to prevent the Colorado beetle entering and establishing in the UK. Should an outbreak be detected, the Department has contingency plans to contain and eradicate the pest.

Fraud

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in (a) her Department's vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.

Elliot Morley: The estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption are:
	
		£ 
		
			 Departmental vote 1999–2000 2000–01 
		
		
			 Former MAFF 27,409 18,616 
			 Former IBEA 0 0 
		
	
	The machinery of Government changes in 2001–02 saw the creation of two votes, one for Rural Payments Agency and the other for the remainder of DEFRA. Prior to that period both former MAFF and IBEA had separate votes.

Agrimonetary Compensation

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to claim agrimonetary compensation in the next six months.

Elliot Morley: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 935W.

Dairy Farmers

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  if she will make a statement on the price of milk that dairy farmers receive in Lancashire;
	(2)  if she will make a statement on the change in milk prices in the last two months for dairy farmers in Lancashire;
	(3)  what support and assistance she will provide to dairy farmers in (a) Lancashire and (b) the UK, to assist them in relation to falling prices;
	(4)  what discussions her Department had on the application for agrimoney aid to support dairy farmers; what recent discussions her officials have had with supermarkets in order to ensure that farmers receive a fair price for milk produced; and what action she is taking to ensure that the price of milk in supermarkets reflects the price paid to dairy farmers.

Elliot Morley: In Lancashire, in common with the rest of the country, the farmgate price of milk has been falling for the last two months. The most recent official figures show that for milk delivered in March the average farmgate price of milk in the UK had fallen to 18.04 pence per litre. However, we expect the average milk price paid to farmers (in May) for milk delivered in April to fall substantially, reflecting the price cuts announced by many purchasers and reported widely in the trade press.
	The reasons for this fall are complex, but it is principally due to unusually high production in the UK so far this year, which has lead to severe competition between milk purchasers to find customers, at a time of weak world and Community markets for dairy commodities. The Government cannot, of course, prevent such overproduction and negotiations between farmers and purchasers, purchasers and their customers, or indeed, processors and supermarkets, are a commercial matter in which the Government cannot get involved. The Government can, however, influence the environment in which price negotiations take place through the Milk and Milk Products Management Committee and we have supported measures taken in Brussels to support EU markets and encourage exports.
	The Department received representations from the industry on the payment of agrimoney aid to the dairy sector. While we acknowledge the difficulties that the sector is facing and are working with them on the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, and the Milk Task Force, we decided not to make a claim for these funds given the many competing demands on the Exchequer at present.

London Markets

Martin Linton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Review of the London Markets.

Elliot Morley: Preparations are in hand for a review and I expect to make a further statement as soon as the necessary arrangements are in place.

Tidal Flows

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what planning legislation exists to protect tidal flows in rivers from the construction of barrages and weirs.

Elliot Morley: Tidal barrages and other structures to control river flows, as for other development projects, will generally require planning permission in addition to consent from the relevant flood defence operating authority.

Atrazine

Desmond Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the safety of Atrazine.

Elliot Morley: All pesticides used in this country, including Atrazine, must be approved by Ministers. Approval is only granted following thorough scientific evaluation of the risk that the pesticide might pose to people, wildlife and to the wider environment. Only if this evaluation shows that there is no unacceptable risk will approval be granted.
	Both the UK and the EU systems for regulating pesticides contain routine review programmes of older pesticides to ensure they meet current safety standards. Atrazine is currently being reviewed as part of the EU programme with the UK acting as Rapporteur Member State. The review covers both the possible effects of Atrazine on human health and the environment. The UK's report on Atrazine is currently being considered by the EU Standing Committee on Plant Health with particular attention being given to the levels of Atrazine found in ground water.
	In the UK restrictions were placed on the agricultural uses of Atrazine in 1992 as there had been widespread breaches of the EU Drinking Water Directive's limit. However, the levels found did not endanger the health of consumers or damage the environment.

Atrazine

Desmond Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate she has made of the extent of the use of Atrazine as a fertiliser.

Elliot Morley: I have no information on the use of Atrazine as a fertiliser. Atrazine is a herbicide and should not be used as a fertiliser.

Foodstuffs Reserves

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the level of strategic reserves of staple foodstuffs in the UK; and how many weeks supply of such foodstuffs are available.

Elliot Morley: The Government no longer holds strategic reserves of food. The availability of staple foodstuffs and plans to handle emergency situations are kept under review at regular meetings between officials and food industry representatives. The fuel crisis of 2000 was a good example of Government and industry working together to ensure the distribution of food in an emergency situation.

Pet Passports

Bill Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from Eurostar on pet passports and guide dogs.

Elliot Morley: Eurostar has been in touch with the Department about the Pet Travel Scheme in the light of representations that it has received from, amongst others, the Royal National Institute for The Blind. Eurostar has made it clear that while it has not been its policy to date to permit the animals of any kind on its trains, it is keenly aware of the assistance that guide dogs bring to visually impaired passengers. The company has, for some time, been considering whether, and how, it might allow the carriage of assistance dogs on its trains. The Department is ready to advise it on how the company could meet the requirements of the Pet Travel Scheme.

State Veterinary Service (Scotland)

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinarians are employed by the state veterinary service in Scotland; and where they are based.

Elliot Morley: A total of 61 veterinarians were employed by the state veterinary service in Scotland on 13 May 2002. Their disposition is illustrated by the following table:
	
		SVS staff in Scotland on 13 May 2002
		
			   Number 
		
		
			 Scottish Veterinary Policy Unit 6 
			 Scottish Field Service HQ 2 
			   
			 Divisions  
			 Ayr 11 
			 Galashiels 14 
			 Inverness 8 
			 Inverurie 10 
			 Perth 10 
			  
			 Total 61

State Veterinary Service (Scotland)

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many laboratories are operated by the state veterinary service in Scotland; and where they are located.

Elliot Morley: The State Veterinary Service (SVS) does not directly operate laboratories.

Coley

Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the amount of coley (saithe) that was discarded back in the sea by British registered vessels during 2001.

Elliot Morley: There is no reliable basis for estimating quantities of saithe discarded by all British registered vessels during 2001. On the basis of partial information, we believe that the amounts of saithe discarded or slipped by UK vessels landing into Great Britain during 2001 may be in excess of 12,000 tonnes.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Civil Defence and Emergency Planning

Gordon Prentice: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what steps he is taking to improve co-ordination of Government policy in respect of civil emergencies.

Christopher Leslie: The Civil Contingencies Secretariat at the Cabinet Office was established last June to support the Civil Contingencies Cabinet Committee, and provide the central focus for the Government's commitment to deal effectively with disruptive challenges, crises and emergencies.

Civil Defence and Emergency Planning

Kevan Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on Government support for local authority emergency planning.

Christopher Leslie: The Government provides financial support by the provision of civil defence grant, with £18.97 million being allocated to local authorities in England and Wales for 2002–03.
	Support is also provided through the issue of guidance documents and training at the Cabinet Office emergency planning college.

Parliamentary Questions

Graham Brady: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what role his Department has (a) in providing guidance to other Departments on the answering of parliamentary questions and (b) in providing them with briefings on parliamentary questions.

Christopher Leslie: In response to a Report of the Public Administration Select Committee on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions, the Cabinet Office issued revised "Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions". Departments can liaise with each other from time to time where parliamentary questions cut across departmental boundaries.

Government Regional Offices

Ben Chapman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the future role of Government offices for the regions.

Barbara Roche: The Government Offices have an important role in strengthening the English regions as set out in our White Paper published on 9 May. They will bring together key Government bodies in their regions. They will also be given extra responsibilities to strengthen regional decision-making.

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Andrew Robathan: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what recent representations he has received on declarations made under the ministerial code of conduct.

Christopher Leslie: Last year the Public Administration Select Committee published a report on the ministerial code and from time to time I receive the occasional representation from hon. Members.

Public Appointments

Charlotte Atkins: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what proportion of public appointments were filled by women over the last five years.

Christopher Leslie: At 31 March 2001, as set out in "Public Bodies 2001", women held 34 per cent. of all of the appointments concerned, compared to 31 per cent. on 1 September 1996.
	The Government remain committed to the principal that women and men should hold an equal proportion of all appointments. To this end, each Department has published plans for increasing diversity in public appointments by 2005 and, specifically, increasing the proportion held by women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people. These plans are contained in "Public Bodies: Opening up Public Appointments 2002–2005", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.
	If the targets set out in these plans are met, this will mean that, by the end of 2005 and for the majority of Departments, women should hold 45–50 per cent. of the appointments to the bodies they sponsor.
	In addition, the Women and Equality Unit is currently running a series of regional seminars, which aim to encourage women who currently hold a local or regional public appointment to apply for a national appointment. Additional seminars have been planned for ethnic minority women, business women, women in journalism and the trade unions.

Sustainable Development

Lawrie Quinn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what representations he has made on the marine environment for the consideration of the world summit on sustainable development.

Barbara Roche: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State has made many representations on the UK priorities for the World summit. The conservation of the marine environment is one of those priorities, given the importance of marine resources for maintaining sustainable livelihoods across the world.

European Employment Directive

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what co-ordinating role his Department is taking in the implementation of the European employment directive in respect of age discrimination.

Barbara Roche: I am co-ordinating the implementation of the European employment directive, which covers discrimination in employment and vocational training on three new equality strands, one of which is age.
	We are working closely with key stakeholders both in and outside Whitehall, as we take forward the implementation of the employment directive.

Administrative Dispersal

Colin Pickthall: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what his policy is for dispersing Government Departments to the regions.

Barbara Roche: Individual Departments and agencies are free to make their own decisions about location and facilities on the basis of operational requirements and value for money.
	However, the existing dispersal of many civil service functions across the UK has worked well, and the Government believe that the administration of public service benefits from this national and regional diversity. Following the publication on 9 May 2002 of the White Paper on regional governance, we will aim to:
	increase the mobility of civil servants between headquarters offices and regional offices (in particular the Government Offices);
	encourage interchange between the civil service and organisations in the regions;
	encourage Whitehall Departments to consider the balance of their staff as between the centre and the regions in terms of effective policy design and implementation.
	In particular, Departments will have to demonstrate the case for not locating new streams of work outside London and the south-east.

Civil Service Pensions

Teddy Taylor: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the percentage increase in civil service pensions in each of the past three years; and on which basis the increase was calculated.

Christopher Leslie: I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 May 2002, Official Report, column 408W.

Ministerial Travel

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what plans he has for travelling abroad to represent the United Kingdom at conferences in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister.

John Prescott: I have no immediate plans for travel.

Joined-up Government

Michael Connarty: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what progress is being made with the implementation of the joined-up Government project.

Christopher Leslie: Joined-up working is key to meeting the Government's delivery agenda. We have introduced a number of initiatives. These include the dissemination of cross-Government policy tools; of good practice across the public sector; the co-ordination of area based initiatives in Government offices; and the creation of cross-cutting public service agreements.

Discrimination

John Bercow: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the action programme to tackle discrimination is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: I have been asked to reply.
	The Community Action Programme to Combat Discrimination (2001–06) supports the development of practical solutions to combat discrimination on grounds of racial and ethnic origin, disability, age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. The programme encourages the exchange of best practice on policies and practices which have been shown to work well in combating discrimination across Europe.
	The Committee has met four times over the last 12 months.
	The current UK representative is the responsible official from this Department's Diversity and Equality Branch.
	It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Christopher Leslie: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

Regional Government

David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what benefits he estimates regional government will bring to the regions of England.

Alan Whitehead: The Government's policy on establishing elected assemblies in the English regions was set out in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511), which was published on 9 May. The benefits of such assemblies are summarised in chapter 3 of the White Paper and elaborated in the following chapters.

Regional Government

Malcolm Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which body is responsible for (a) the regulation and (b) the auditing of expenditure of the regional assemblies.

Alan Whitehead: The arrangements for funding elected regional assemblies are described in chapter 5 of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", published on 9 May. Regional assemblies' financial responsibilities will be set out in the primary legislation which will be needed before assemblies can be established. Assemblies will be subject to appropriate audit arrangements. We are discussing with the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission what form these should take.

Local Councils (Auditing)

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for internal and external auditing of local councils.

Alan Whitehead: I am aware of the need to ensure that external and internal audit arrangements for local councils are appropriate. For this reason, the Audit Commission has introduced a new "lighter touch" audit framework for local councils, with the aim of making the external audit process more proportionate to the size and circumstances of local councils. We plan to consult later this year on proposals to make explicit the need for authorities to follow existing relevant best practice when carrying out their internal audit role.

Mobile Telephones

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review the operation of road traffic law in relation to the use of mobile telephones by drivers of road vehicles.

David Jamieson: In accordance with our road safety strategy, we are keeping the need for new legislation on the use of mobile phones by drivers under review.

Mobile Telephones

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the number of road accidents in which the use of mobile telephones by the driver has been a contributory factor.

David Jamieson: Detailed investigation is needed to establish he cause of any accident. Two research projects currently under way will help to establish the likely numbers of road traffic accidents involving mobile phones. One project involves carrying out in-depth analysis of police fatal road accident reports that identify distraction as a possible contributory factor. The other involves on-the-spot studies of accidents in order to improve the understanding of the influences of human involvement, vehicle and highway design on accident causation and injury mechanisms. Nevertheless, international research has provided clear evidence of an increased risk of an accident when using a mobile phone while driving.

Population Growth

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what Her Majesty's Government's policy is for reducing population growth in the south east of England relative to other regions.

Sally Keeble: The Government's policy is to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment throughout the UK, with all regions and communities having the opportunity to share in the nation's prosperity. Our target is to improve the economic performance of all regions, measured by the trend in growth of each region's GDP per capita. We believe this is best done by tackling the causes of regional under-performance in some regions rather than by restraining economic development in others.

Pneumoconiosis

Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the medical assessment procedure set up under the compensation scheme for pneumoconiosis may be accessed by mesothelioma claimants, irrespective of whether they may be able to sue their former employer or not.

Alan Whitehead: The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions administers a scheme under the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The Act provides compensation for sufferers (or their dependants) of certain dust-related diseases who are unable to claim damages from the responsible employers as they have gone out of business.
	Mesothelioma is one of the diseases covered by the Act. The three conditions of eligibility for a payment of compensation are that:
	(i) industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB) is, or in the case of dependants was, payable in respect of the disease;
	(ii) every relevant employer has ceased to carry on business; and
	(iii) the sufferer or dependants must not have brought any action or received an out-of-court settlement in respect of the disease.
	Mesothelioma is a listed prescribed industrial disease for the purposes of IIDB. IIDB is awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). For such an award the claimant will have been referred for medical advice. There is no separate medical assessment process set up under the 1979 Act.
	A claim for IIDB can be made irrespective of whether the claimant is pursuing a civil action against their employer. However, a payment under the 1979 Act cannot be made if there is a relevant employer still trading who may have caused or contributed to the claimants's condition.

Telecommunications Masts

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on 3G cellular telephony roll-out of different models of planning controls with regard to masts.

Sally Keeble: holding answer 16 May 2002
	Different approaches to telecommunications planning apply in England and the devolved Administrations. In England, the installation of any telecommunications mast in protected areas, such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and conservation areas, and of masts above 15 metres in height elsewhere, is subject to an application for planning permission for determination by the local planning authority. The installation of masts up to 15 metres in height, elsewhere, would be subject to a prior approval procedure under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). The planning arrangements do not distinguish between different generations of telecommunications equipment. The devolved Administrations have their own planning regulations.
	On 22 August last year, following consultation, we introduced changes that significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development in England. Our changes, which included amendments to the 1995 Order, were:
	strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are the same as for planning applications;
	increased the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days;
	underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; and
	increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
	These arrangements give authorities more time to consider proposals but with consent deemed to be granted if no decision has been made after 56 days so that development is not delayed.
	The new arrangements strike the right balance by improving consultation with local people while minimising delay for the rollout of telecommunications networks and giving the 45 million people who use mobile phones the service they want.

Modular Homes

Jimmy Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 
	(1)  if new modular homes will be available to people on low wages in the private sector;
	(2)  how many new modular homes will be built; and what estimate he has made of their average price.

Sally Keeble: The Government recognise that there is an urgent and growing need to assist the number of key workers and others on intermediate incomes who cannot afford to rent or buy in high demand areas where house prices have risen sharply over the last few years. We are looking at a number of options for helping overcome this problem, including the potential to increase housing supply quickly by using the modular unit construction techniques as illustrated by the Peabody Trust scheme at Murray Grove, Hackney.
	The Government do not hold costings on modular build.

Emergency Services (Communications)

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals there are to provide a link between the fire service national radio communications system and the police radio system (Airwave); how they will be reflected in the competitive tendering process; and what plans there are to use common approaches to masts and other equipment between the fire, ambulance and police forces.

Alan Whitehead: holding answer 21 May 2002
	It is intended that the requirement to provide effective interoperability between the fire service and the other emergency services will be included as part of the specification for a replacement wide-area radio system for the fire service. The design of a system which meets the requirements of the specification will be a matter for tenderers.

Fire Service College

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the fire service college, Moreton-in-Marsh, how many orders of over £1 million have been (a) won and (b) lost in the last three months; and on what date his Department took over responsibility from the Home Department.

Alan Whitehead: During the last three months the FSC has neither won nor lost any orders whose value exceeded £1 million. The last order that the FSC received whose value exceeded £1 million was in January 2002. The largest order that the FSC has received in the last three months is valued at £0.85 million.
	The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions assumed responsibility for fire matters, including the fire service college in June 2001.

Fire Service College

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the status is of the review of the framework document on the fire service college, Moreton-in-Marsh; in drawing up financial targets for 2002–03, by how much in (a) number and (b) income he expects (i) domestic and (ii) foreign courses to change compared with 2001–02; and when he expects the 2001–02 reports to be presented to Parliament.

Alan Whitehead: The review of the framework document for the fire service college will be an important undertaking for the task group announced in my written answer of today's date to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth).
	Information on number and income of domestic and foreign courses is not held at the fire service college in the form requested. Therefore, such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	The college expresses its targets in financial terms. The financial targets for 2002–03 as set out in the FSC business plan provide for a minimum increase in turnover over 2001–02 in the region of £1 million.
	The FSC expects to present its 2001–02 annual report and accounts to Parliament in July 2002.

Fire Service College

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the studies and investigations, including audit investigations, instigated and commissioned by his Department on the fire service college, Moreton-in- Marsh; on what date they began; when each is due to report to his Department; if he will publish them; if he will make a statement on the areas in which he expects action to be taken as a result of these reports: and what plans there are to commission further reports.

Alan Whitehead: DTLR have been conducting a review of financial regularity and propriety following the suspension of the Chief Executive on 31 January 2002. As there are a number of matters outstanding it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.
	Following the suspension and subsequent resignation of the college's Facilities Manager, the Department commissioned a surveyors' review of value for money and probity in the procurement of estates works. The review started on 8 March 2002. A completion date has not been set. There are no plans for publication.
	The only other study set up by the Department which directly concerns the fire service college is the establishment of a task group to review the future direction and funding of the college. The aim of the group is to ensure that the college is in a secure position to undertake its valuable work in the future and its terms of reference can be found in my written answer of today to my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth). The task group, which is to report to Ministers in September, has been drawn from bodies representing fire service stakeholders and customers.
	The Department has no plans at present for any further studies or reports.

Fire Service College

Helen Southworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to review the future direction and funding of the fire service college; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Whitehead: I am today announcing the formation of a task group to report in September on short-term action to meet the current training requirements of the fire service and to make longer term recommendations.
	The fire service college has a well deserved reputation as a centre of excellence in providing national training for Britain's firefighters. But we need to ensure that the college is in a secure position to undertake this role for the future. We are therefore asking the task group to:
	(1) prepare a statement setting out the mission, functions, aims and objectives for the college as the primary training provider within a fire service development strategy.
	(2) consider appropriate involvement of customer and stakeholder interests.
	(3) recommend a preferred solution for future funding of the college; and
	(4) In the light of (1), (2) and (3) review the framework of financial planning and control, the relationship with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and accountability to Ministers and to Parliament.
	Membership of the task group has been drawn from bodies representing stakeholders and customers.

Government Communications

David Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how he intends to ensure effective communication between regional assemblies, the devolved institutions of the United Kingdom and central Government.

Alan Whitehead: The Government's proposals for ensuring effective working relationships between different tiers of government following the establishment of elected assemblies in the English regions are set out in chapter 8 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511), which was published on 9 May.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: This committee is established under the provisions of Article 22 of the Agreement between the European Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the field of transport which was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 18 December 1997. The remit of the committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. The committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. But I am not aware that it has met since the conclusion of the Agreement or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Hungary Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: This committee is established under the provisions of the Agreement of 12 July 2000 between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of goods by road and the promotion of combined transport. The remit of the committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the Agreement. The committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and Hungary. But I am not aware that it has met since the conclusion of the Agreement or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in air transport is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions in the Shipping Industry is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions in the Transport Industry is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Melanie Johnson: I have been asked to reply.
	The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions is the body through which the European Commission carries out its duty to consult member states on decisions and amendments to EC competition law which it proposes to adopt. For the UK, DTI and Office of Fair Trading officials and, where transport issues are under discussion, DTLR officials attend meetings of the committee.
	The committee meets only when there are decisions or legislative proposals to discuss. In the last 12 months, there have been four meetings on air transport matters and two on maritime transport. Issues currently on the agenda are a proposed extension of Air Transport Regulation 1617/93, the granting of clearance to a co-operation agreement between Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines and a review of Maritime Transport Regulation 4056/86.
	The process is transparent. The Commission publishes in the Official Journal of the European Communities the draft of any proposed change to legislation in advance of the committee meeting at which it will be discussed. Adopted decisions, which are open to challenge at the European Court of Justice, are also published in the Official Journal.
	It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the EC-Slovenia Joint Transport Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The committee is established under the provisions of the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Slovenia in the field of transport which was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 29 July 1993. The remit of the committee is to ensure the proper implementation of the agreement. The committee would be made up of representatives appointed by the Community and Slovenia. But I am not aware that it has met since the conclusion of the agreement or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Standing Committee on the Harmonisation of National Legislation on Cableway Installations Designed to Carry Passengers is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: This committee is established under the provisions of Article 17 of Directive 2000/9/EC relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons. The remit of the committee is to assist the Commission in the implementation of the requirements of the directive and in coordination of all procedures. The committee would be composed of representatives of member states and chaired by the European Commission. But I am not aware that it has met since the adoption of the directive or that there are any plans for it to meet in the immediate future.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com(2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Alan Whitehead: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

Sellafield

David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the (a) safety precautions in force and (b) material used to transport MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield.

David Jamieson: (a) The regulations in force concerning safety are:
	Sea—The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 2367); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1755(M), "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form—Amendment 30–00 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code". The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel etc.) (Code) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 3216).
	Rail—The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations (RAMRail) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2090): Approved Requirements for the packaging, labelling and carriage of radioactive material by rail 1996 edition. The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations (CDGCPL) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2092). The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 303).
	Road—The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1350).
	(b) MOX fuel may be transported in packages on UK flagged ships, respectively approved and certified in accordance with the regulations cited above.

Health and Safety Executive

Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the recommendations made by the Health and Safety Executive since 1997 which should have been implemented to date; what steps have been taken to ensure these recommendations will be implemented; when these recommendations are likely to be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) do not make recommendations to Ministers on railway safety matters, this is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission. Recommendations made by the Commission since 1997 were that the Secretary of State make regulations on train protection and Mark 1 rolling stock (1998), regulations to extend the scope of train operators' safety cases and transfer responsibility for the acceptance of safety cases from Railtrack to the Health and Safety Executive (2000) and regulations to make clear that safety cases cover escape from trains as well as organised evacuation in an emergency (2001) implementing a recommendation from Lord Cullen's part 1 report into the Ladbroke Grove train accident. All of these regulations have been made.
	HSE Railway Inspectors regularly make recommendations as part of their checks on dutyholders. Providing details of such recommendations would entail disproportionate cost.

Disabled Travellers

Tim Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what evidence he has collated on UK airports as to the levying of differential handling charges for disabled travellers; and if he will take steps to prevent this practice.

David Jamieson: There is general agreement across airports and airlines that the additional costs incurred in providing assistance to disabled passengers should not be passed on to those passengers. That principle will be reflected in a UK Code of Practice on air travel for disabled people that the Department is planning to publish this summer. Compliance with that Code will be on a voluntary basis, but we have said that we will take powers to place the Code on a statutory basis should the voluntary approach prove ineffective.
	Additionally, many UK airlines and airports have signed the European Air Passenger Rights Charter, which was launched on 14 February and which includes a similar commitment. The Charter covers a range of non-legally binding commitments to deliver defined standards of service to air travellers.
	The Charter was developed by European airlines and airports following extensive discussion with representatives of air travellers; the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), representing European Governments; and the European Commission. My Department is also involved in discussions through the European Civil Aviation Conference to look at the mechanisms which have been established at different airports across Europe to cover the costs of assisting disabled passengers and to develop guidance on workable models for providing assistance and covering the costs on an equitable basis.

The New Humber Pilotage Service

Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Humber Pilots Limited were consulted in the preparation of the document The New Humber Pilotage Service.

David Jamieson: The paper was prepared following extensive representations from and on behalf of former Humber pilots, and several meetings with them and officers of Humber Pilots Ltd. The paper is an account of the Department's independent assessment of the new pilotage arrangements—it was not prepared to represent the views of the former pilots or other parties, although those that were expressed to the Department are fully reflected in the concerns that the paper discusses.

Freight Movement (Channel Tunnel)

Roger Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to secure the restitution of normal freight services using the Channel Tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: holding answer 21 May 2002
	The Government continues to press the French Government at the highest levels to provide adequate policing resources at Fréthun to support the anti-intrusion measures already being installed by SNCF in order to address the disruption to channel tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants. We welcome the additional resources that have already been deployed. The Government also welcomes the recent announcement by the French Government of proposals to further strengthen the anti-intrusion measures at Fréthun, and the personal assurance from the new Interior Minister of his commitment to maintain policing resources.

Oil Tankers

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of Regulation (EC) 417/2002 (OJ L64, 7/3/02), on the sales of oil tankers from the EU fleet to countries not covered by the regulation; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The sale of oil tankers is a matter for the buyer and seller within the relevant regulatory framework.
	Last year the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed to accelerate the phasing in of double hull tankers so that by 2017 single hull tankers will no longer be in service anywhere in the world. Under the IMO agreement states may bring this deadline forward slightly and EU member states have chosen this option. Regulation 417/2002 provides that the final deadline by which a vessel flying an EU flag or using an EU port must be fitted with a double hull is 2015 rather than 2017.

Transport Expenditure

John Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much (a) private capital and (b) public money was spent on transport during the first year of the 10-year plan.

Stephen Byers: During the first year of the 10-year plan for Transport (2001–02), provisional figures indicate that around £6,550 million of public money was spent on transport, almost £500 million more than was envisaged in the published plan.
	My Department is currently collecting data on private sector spending on transport in 2001–02 and an estimate of this should be included in the first year report on the 10-year plan when it is published in July.

Aviation White Paper

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the proposed aviation White Paper will be published; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: As part of the process leading up to the proposed air transport White Paper we expect to publish a series of regional consultation documents on airports and air services in early summer. When the consultation has been completed we will analyse the responses before taking decisions on the policies for the new White Paper, which we aim to publish towards the end of the year.

London Underground

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the latest estimated date is for the handover of the operation of the London underground to the Mayor of London; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The handover will happen as soon as possible after completion of the PPP contracts. The contracts will take effect provided the Health and Safety Executive approve London Underground's Railway Safety Case.

Railway Industry

John Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the findings of the administrator as vendor on the condition of Railtrack assets.

Stephen Byers: This is a matter for the administrator.

Railway Industry

John Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what incentives he proposes for rail safety in the scheme for a company limited by guarantee to take over the railways.

Stephen Byers: Discussions are continuing on Network Rail's incentive proposals. Network Rail has made clear that if it succeeds in becoming network operator its work will be supported by an incentive scheme based on system-wide safety and performance measures.

Railway Industry

Anthony Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to hold discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority concerning the re-routing of the main railway line between Paddington and Penzance away from the sea wall down the Exe Estuary and the coast at Dawlish and Teignmouth; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: Work has been carried out on flood defences and track re-laying to protect this section of the railway from wetting and erosion. However, there are no plans to re-route the main line.

Railway Industry

John Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 
	(1)  if he will list the consultants and external advisers used by the Government in the last year on railway matters;
	(2)  how much the Government have paid in fees in the last year for advice on railway and underground matters.

Stephen Byers: The consultants and external advisers, used by the Government in the last year on railway and underground matters, are as listed in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member on 22 November 2001, Official Report, column 390W, except that: Finsbury Ltd., Herbert Smith, Linklaters and Alliance, Partnerships UK and Professor Andrew Evans should be added to that list; AEA Technology Rail, AON, Booz Allen and Hamilton, Deloitte and Touche and NERA should be deleted from it; and "Oscar Faber" should be altered to "Faber Maunsell".
	In the last year, the Government have paid those consultants and external advisers about £19 million.

Railway Industry

Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many animals have been (a) killed, (b) injured and (c) retrieved from railway lines in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The Health and Safety Executive's HM Railway Inspectorate only collect statistics on the number of trains which run into animals. Details are contained in the table. Further information may be found in HM Chief Inspector of Railways annual reports on railway safety, copies of which are in both House Libraries.
	
		Trains running into animals 1996–97 to 2001–02
		
			  Number of trains 
		
		
			 1996–97 142 
			 1997–98 124 
			 1998–99 134 
			 1999–2000 155 
			 2000–01 129 
			 2001–02(1) 75 
		
	
	(1) Provisional

Railway Industry

Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many incidents of motor vehicles colliding with trains on railway lines there were in each year since 1997; in which locations; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: Information held by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on the number of incidents where trains have collided with motor vehicles on railway lines (not at level crossings) since 1977 is contained in the table. This information is based on notifications the HSE has received from railway operators under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1995 (RIDDOR).
	Information for the period 1 April 2001 to date is under analysis by HSE and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			 Date Location 
		
		
			 3 February 1997 Ascott under Wychwood 
			 15 March 1997 Morton Garage 
			 8 June 1997 Burbage 
			 9 September 1998 Thornton 
			 16 November 1998 Slateford 
			 22 January 1999 Firbeck 
			 29 July 1999 Holton-Le-Moor 
			 17 November 1999 Northumberland Park 
			 18 August 1999 Drax Branch Junction 
			 14 September 1999 Aberdeen 
			 26 February 2000 Kiveton Bridge 
			 20 August 2000 Micklefield 
			 28 February 2001 Great Heck

Railway Industry

Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the final report into the rail accident at Hatfield in October 2000 was originally planned to be published; when it will be published; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The Health and Safety Executive's final report will be published after the British Transport Police investigation and any possible criminal prosecutions arising from it have been completed. Safety critical information from the investigation has already been made available to the industry.

Railway Industry

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the extent is of the legal relationship between the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: The Strategic Rail Authority is meeting the bid team's costs in order to ensure that there is at least one viable bidder for Railtrack plc. There is no other legal relationship between the SRA and Network Rail.

Railway Industry

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 May 2002, Official Report, column 508, on rail safety, if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on 1 May asking him to report by the end of May on the progress made on Cullen's recommendations to which he refers in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Byers: holding answer 21 May 2002
	Normally the letter would be exempt from publication, however as I referred to it during my statement to the House on 13 May, I have placed a copy in the Libraries. I will also place a copy of the Health and Safety Commission's response when it is received.

Minibuses

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how often (a) non- PSV minibuses and (b) PSV minibuses will be subject to a seat belt installation check.

David Jamieson: A seat belt installation check is carried out on all new PSVs at the registration stage as part of the Certificate of Initial Fitness (COIF) check.
	If additional seat belts are added to a PSV or non-PSV, the installation is checked at the first annual test after fitting.

School Buses

Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he intends to take to encourage wider take-up of the yellow bus transport to school schemes.

Sally Keeble: We would like to see more children travelling to school by bus, especially where it is too far for them to walk or cycle or it is not safe for them to do so. There are currently two first yellow school bus pilots running in England with a further one due to start shortly in Wales. Once these pilot schemes have been running for about a year, they will be comprehensively evaluated by consultants working for my Department. Depending on the results of this evaluation, we will then consider whether we wish to encourage wider take-up of yellow school bus schemes, and if so how we will go about doing it.

CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT

New Millennium Experience Company

Tim Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the grounds on which the identity of the individual acting as the Government's shareholder in the New Millennium Experience Company was decided.

Kim Howells: holding answer 2 May 2002
	The decision to appoint a Cabinet Office Minister as the first shareholder was made under the previous Government. The subsequent appointment of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Peter Mandelson) as shareholder was consistent with this, as was the appointment of Lord Falconer who was also a Cabinet Office Minister. The former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Chris Smith) held the position in a temporary capacity on two occasions.

New Millennium Experience Company

Tim Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 578W, what was the method by which the shares in the New Millennium Experience Company were transferred from one shareholder to another.

Kim Howells: holding answer 2 May 2002
	With reference to the shareholders listed in my Written Answer of 25 March, the shares in the New Millennium Experience Company were transferred from one shareholder to another using, in each case, a stock transfer form.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the mandate of the Contact Committee for Implementation of the Television without frontiers Directive is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: The Contact Committee was established in Article 23a of the 1997 revision of the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive as an Advisory Committee to assist the European Commission in its supervision of the implementation of the Directive. In particular, it addresses problems arising from decisions on the licensing of broadcasters, and approves the listed events of major importance for society when submitted by a member state. It meets when required, and met once in the previous year, at a cost of approximately £600. Under its rules of procedure, some reports are available on the Commission's website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry and of the programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA III) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: The Media Plus programme 2001–05 is governed by two Decisions:
	Council Decision 2000/821/EC of 20 December 2000 on the implementation of a programme to encourage the development, distribution, and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus—Development, Distribution and Promotion) (2001–2005). The legal basis is Article 157 (3) (Title XVI—Industry) of the treaty establishing the European Community.
	Decision No. 163/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (MEDIA Training) (2001–05). The legal basis is Article 150 (4) (Chapter 3 of Title XI—Social Policy, Education, Vocational Training and Youth) of the treaty establishing the European Community.
	In the last 12 months the Media Plus management committee has met five times. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and from the Film Council, the lead strategic body for film in the United Kingdom.
	The annual cost borne by my Department in contributing to the work of the committee covers both the cost of officials' time in preparing for, and attending committee meetings as well as carrying out resultant action. The cost incurred by my Department in this work over the last 12 months is estimated to be £15,000. To disaggregate the costs of the committee from the UK's total contribution to the EU budget would involve disproportionate costs.
	The management committee is currently considering a range of items. These include formulating new guidelines for appraisal of pilot and innovative projects, approving the results of calls for projects within a number of the programme's measures and keeping budgetary and procedural matters under review.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to the Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final. As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the programme establishing a single financing and programming instrument for cultural co-operation (Culture 2000) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: The mandate of the Culture 2000 Management Committee is to assist the European Commission in the management of the Culture 2000 programme. It was established by a European Parliament and Council Decision (No 508/2000/EC, Article 5) on 14 February 2000.
	The committee has met five times over the last 12 months and the UK has been represented on each occasion by officials from my Department. The costs incurred by my Department in attending these meetings are limited to travel and subsistence. To disaggregate the overall costs of the committee's work from the UK's total contribution to the EU budget would involve disproportionate cost.
	The issues currently under consideration by the committee are the selection of cultural projects to be supported by the programme in 2002, and the publication of the call for applications for 2003.
	Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the submission of Commission and Council documents to parliamentary scrutiny. Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, "to simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Commission Document 5685/02). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Playing Fields

Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to create an accurate record of playing field losses and their cause over the last five years.

Richard Caborn: holding answer 20 May 2002
	Data on playing field losses are not available. My Department has established a Playing Fields Monitoring Group which will shortly be publishing combined figures for (a) applications from schools submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the disposal or change of use of school playing fields (which are already published monthly), and (b) figures from Sport England giving details of planning applications affecting playing fields which have been referred to them as statutory consultee (which are already published quarterly), along with (c) relevant data from the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

Playing Fields

Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Playing Fields Monitoring Group first met; how often it has met; and when the details of playing field losses will be published.

Richard Caborn: holding answer 20 May 2002
	The Playing Fields Monitoring Group first met on 10 July 2000 and has met on eight occasions. Data on playing fields losses are not available. The Playing Fields Monitoring Group which will shortly be publishing combined figures for (a) applications from schools submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the disposal or change of use of school playing fields (which are already published monthly), and (b) figures from Sport England giving details of planning applications affecting playing fields which have been referred to them as statutory consultee (which are already published quarterly), along with (c) relevant data from the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

Tourism (London)

Andrew Love: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote tourism in (a) Greater London and (b) Enfield; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: Since 2001–02, the Greater London Authority (GLA) has been responsible for tourism in London. The Mayor has delegated responsibility to the London Development Agency (LDA), who have been working closely with the London Tourist Board (LTB). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is granting the GLA £1.9 million for 2002–03. This is to be used predominantly on marketing London overseas, including £250,000 for marketing London as a gateway to the rest of the UK. Up to £100,000 may be used for domestic marketing and £400,000 for improving tourism infrastructure. The Mayor is currently producing a three-year strategic tourism plan for London, with DCMS encouragement, which is in the final stages of development.
	The London borough of Enfield also carries out varied promotional work as part of over £90 million spent by local authorities around the country on developing and marketing tourism. They are conducting a full programme of promotional campaigns for 2002–03 in conjunction with Enfield Hoteliers and Hospitality Association and attraction providers.

Channel 5

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the management of Channel 5 television as to the feasibility of extending the range of their analogue television service since the collapse of ITV Digital.

Kim Howells: I had no specific discussions on this topic with the management of Channel 5 television. The priority for the use of scarce frequency channels is to develop digital terrestrial television across the UK, including digital Channel 5, rather than to extend analogue Channel 5 services. Therefore the multiplexes used by ITV Digital have been re-advertised by the ITC.

Channel 5

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the (a) population and (b) land mass of (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) England are able to receive Channel 5 television by means of the analogue signal.

Kim Howells: The information is not available in the form requested. The Independent Television Commission advise that analogue Channel 5 services are transmitted from 50 transmitters across the UK of which: 11 are located in Scotland; three in Wales; two in Northern Ireland and 34 in England. These transmitters provide coverage to 80 per cent. of the UK population. Coverage details can be found on Channel 5's website at www.channel5.co.uk.

Unpaid Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 306W, what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of unpaid advisers who have assisted the work of her Department since June 1997 but are not included in the Cabinet Office's annual report "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews 2000–01".

Kim Howells: holding answer 21 May 2002
	As my answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon- Tweed (Mr. Beith) of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 306W made clear, Ministers in this Department have not appointed any unpaid advisers other than those accounted for in the list of task forces, reviews and other ad hoc advisory groups.

Equal Treatment

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by her Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published.

Kim Howells: The guidelines on gender impact assessments, issued by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Minister for Women in November 1998, are incorporated into the Department's central guidance on policy formulation. However, the Department does not keep a central register of gender impact assessments, and the answer could be given only at disproportionate cost.

Equal Treatment

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved.

Kim Howells: The Department has responsibility for a very wide range of policies, and a single baseline for policy appraisal would not be universally appropriate.
	We are currently appraising all of our policies in line with our new responsibilities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and have also been considering a number of relevant policies against the wider criteria of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The results of these assessments will be published on the Department's website. The Department also has targets for increasing the representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities on the boards of its public bodies.

Equal Treatment

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over the proposed legislation by her Department during the 2000–01 and 2001–02 sessions; and if their responses have been published.

Kim Howells: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department actively follows the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on Written Consultations, which is intended to make consultations more effective by opening up decision-making to as wide a range of people and organisations as possible. Individual responses to written consultations are made available to the public unless respondents have sought confidentiality.

Special Advisers

Andrew Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions between 31 March 2001 and 31 March 2002 (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost.

Richard Caborn: During the period 31 March 2001 to 31 March 2002, special advisers in this Department travelled overseas on official business on one occasion; to Athens, Greece. The cost of this visit was borne by the Greek Government.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

School Transport

Colin Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 2 May 2002, Official Report, columns 905–06W, what the average (a) distance and (b) time travelled by schoolchildren was (i) on foot (ii) by bus (iii) by car and (iv) other to rural (A) primary and (B) secondary schools between 1992 and 2000.

Sally Keeble: I have been asked to reply.
	The average distance travelled and average time taken by schoolchildren travelling to primary and secondary schools for those living in rural areas in Great Britain, from the National Travel Survey over the period 1992–2000, was as follows:
	
		miles 
		
			 Distance travelled by (A) primary (B) secondary 
		
		
			 (i) Foot 0.4 0.6 
			 (ii) Bus 4.9 8.6 
			 (iii) Car 3.1 5.8 
			 (iv) Other 3.0 8.1 
		
	
	
		minutes 
		
			 Average time taken by (A) Primary (B) Secondary 
		
		
			 (i) Foot 10 13 
			 (ii) Bus 22 31 
			 (iii) Car 10 17 
			 (iv) Other 13 29 
		
	
	Note:
	Primary pupils are defined as children aged 5–10 in the National Travel Survey, Secondary defined as children aged 11–16. Rural areas are those with a population of less than 3,000 as defined by the 1991 Census.

School Transport

Colin Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 905W, on school transport, how many children were included in the National Travel Survey in each year between 1992 and 2000.

Sally Keeble: I have been asked to reply.
	The number of children taking part in the National Travel Survey over the period 1992–2000 was as follows:
	
		
			  Age range  Total 16  
			  0–4 5–10 11–16 and under All ages 
		
		
			 1992 570 676 613 1,859 8,320 
			 1993 566 691 649 1,906 8,161 
			 1994 586 693 597 1,876 8,190 
			 1995 615 693 598 1,906 8,029 
			 1996 534 633 591 1,758 7,665 
			 1997 514 654 581 1,749 7,473 
			 1998 463 534 510 1,507 6,842 
			 1999 452 562 533 1,547 6,970 
			 2000 536 662 625 1,823 8,056 
			  
			 Grand total 4,841 5,811 5,314 15,966 69,851

Schools (Private Sponsors)

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what approaches she has made to individuals, organisations and companies to sponsor academies and city academies; and what criteria are used to determine such approaches.

Stephen Timms: My Department has a dedicated Business Development Unit working with the corporate sector, to help build effective partnerships with companies. The Business Development Unit is supporting the Academies Unit to help identify potential sponsors for academies. My Department brings together these potential sponsors—many of them philanthropic individuals—and local education authorities (LEAs) who have expressed an interest in hosting an academy. It is for the sponsor and LEA to determine whether to establish an academy partnership.

Schools (Private Sponsors)

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements she has made to ensure that private sponsors of academies and city academies do not have a majority of places on the governing body of a school.

Stephen Timms: Governing bodies of academies will comprise sponsors, or their representatives, and other stakeholders, including staff, parents and an LEA representative. It would be possible for governors appointed by sponsors to be in the majority. As trustees all governors of academies will have a duty to act in the interests of the academy.

Schools (Private Sponsors)

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers and benefits can be received where an organisation or individual provides substantial sponsorship to an emerging school.

Stephen Timms: Sponsors of academies are expected to play a key role in the strategic leadership of the schools they support. Sponsors—whether individuals or organisations—can derive no financial or other material benefit from their involvement with the schools.

Church Schools Company

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when her Department invited the Church Schools Company to sponsor the proposed Moss Side City Academy; which other schools have been offered to the Church Schools Company; and what the criteria are for such approaches.

Stephen Timms: My Department brings together potential sponsors and local education authorities (LEAs) who have expressed an interest in hosting an Academy. It is for the sponsor and LEA to determine whether to establish an Academy partnership. Manchester LEA and the Church Schools Company have been working together since October 2001 to establish a partnership for an Academy to replace Ducie High School in Manchester. The Church Schools Company is also sponsoring a new City Academy in Lambeth. The company has expressed interest in sponsoring other Academies and is in discussion with a number of authorities.

Faith Schools

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills where an Academy is created involving the (a) Church Schools Company and (b) other faith-based organisations, what control they will be able to exercise over admissions.

Stephen Timms: The admission arrangements for each Academy will be agreed with the Secretary of State and form part of its legally binding funding agreement. Admission arrangements for all Academies must be consistent with admissions law and the statutory codes of practice, as these apply to maintained schools.

Faith Schools

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills where an existing school is taken over by (a) a faith-based organisation and (b) a group sponsored by a faith-based individual, what provision there will be for existing pupils and teachers to opt out of faith-based teaching and arrangements.

Stephen Timms: No state school can be taken over by an organisation or group. For an existing state school to become a faith school would require publication of two sets of statutory proposals—to close the school, and to open a new school with a religious character. The local School Organisation Committee, or Schools Adjudicator, would decide on the proposals following local consultation.
	We would expect the School Organisation Committee or Adjudicator to seek assurances from the local education authority that existing pupils, including those who did not wish to transfer to the new faith school, would be provided for and their interests safeguarded.
	Parents of children transferring to the new school could withdraw their children from RE teaching and collective worship if they wished to.
	Teachers of the existing school who transferred to the new faith school would continue to enjoy the protections that applied to their employment at their former school. They would not have to participate in religious aspects of the new school. Those who did not wish to transfer would have to seek alternative employment if the local education authority did not offer another post.

Asylum Seekers

Richard Allan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if teachers who teach in accommodation centres for asylum seekers will be required to have completed initial teacher training.

Stephen Timms: No decision has yet been taken as to whether those who will teach in the accommodation centres for asylum seekers will be required to have completed initial teacher training.

Asylum Seekers

Richard Allan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the vacancy rates for each of the last five years for (a) primary teachers and (b) secondary teachers in each of the eight local education authorities in which the Government are proposing to locate an accommodation centre for asylum seekers.

Stephen Timms: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is currently proposing to locate an accommodation centre for asylum seekers in the following three English local education authorities: Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire, and Oxfordshire. A site in Lincolnshire is currently being evaluated.
	The vacancy rates in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in these local education authorities 1 in the last five years for which we have data 2 are as follows:
	
		Nursery/primary vacancy rates
		
			 LEA 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
		
		
			 Former Hereford and Worcestershire 0.0 0.0 — — — 
			 Herefordshire — — 0.3 1.4 1.2 
			 Worcestershire — — 0.4 0.2 0.0 
			 Total former Hereford and Worcester area 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.3 
			   
			 Former Nottinghamshire 0.0 0.0 — — — 
			 Nottinghamshire — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 
			 Nottingham — — 0.0 1.7 1.4 
			 Total former Nottinghamshire area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 
			   
			 Lincolnshire 0.9 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 
			 Oxfordshire 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 
		
	
	
		Secondary vacancy rates
		
			 LEA 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
		
		
			 Former Hereford and Worcestershire 0.1 0.2 — — — 
			 Herefordshire — — 0.8 0.6 2.0 
			 Worcestershire — — 0.2 0.1 0.3 
			 Total former Hereford and Worcester area 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 
			   
			 Former Nottinghamshire 0.0 0.0 — — — 
			 Nottinghamshire — — 0.0 0.0 0.0 
			 Nottingham — — 0.0 0.8 2.7 
			 Total former Nottinghamshire area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 
			   
			 Lincolnshire 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 
			 Oxfordshire 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 
		
	
	Two sites are under consideration in Wales and Scotland, and two further sites in England have been found to be unsuitable and rejected.
	1 Local education authorities created by local government reorganisation in 1998 are shown under their parent authority. To allow comparisons between years, the vacancy data for new authorities have been aggregated to give total rates for the former authority areas.
	2 Data for January 2002 are not yet available at local education authority level. Information on vacancies in January 2002 by local education authority will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.

Teacher Training Agency

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of producing the new logo of the Teacher Training Agency.

Stephen Timms: The cost of producing the new Teacher Training Agency logo, including contract management, design and development costs, came to £38,110, plus VAT.

Juvenile Sex Abusers

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision is made within initial teacher training to provide trainee teachers with assistance in responding to children and young people who sexually abuse.

Stephen Timms: The Government do not dictate the detailed curriculum for teacher training. However, we do expect teacher training providers to ensure trainee teachers are properly prepared to meet the standards required for Qualified Teacher Status. These standards include being aware of the statutory framework relating to teachers' responsibilities—which would include child protection legislation—and identifying and supporting pupils experiencing behavioural and emotional difficulties, with the help of an experienced teacher. Trainee teachers are also expected to understand the role of other professionals—including those responsible for child protection; to challenge harassment; and to work within schools' policies and procedures.

Teacher Vacancies

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will identify the local education authorities whose information on teacher vacancies had not been validated when the statistical first release was issued.

Stephen Timms: As in past years, the Government have no plans to publish the names of local education authorities whose information on teachers in service and teacher vacancies had not been validated when Statistical First Release 05/2002 was issued on 24 April. Statistical first releases are published on the basis that their contents should be considered to be provisional in their entirety.
	Fully validated data will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve her Department.

Ivan Lewis: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Jack Straw: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

José Bustani

Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government about their stance on the position of José Bustani in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Ben Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with the United States Secretary of State about the matter in a telephone conversation on 1 March 2002.

WALES

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the (a) names and (b) the responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Paul Murphy: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

DEFENCE

Overseas Military Personnel

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training courses run by his Department have been attended by overseas military personnel from (a) China and (b) Zimbabwe since May 1997.

Adam Ingram: During the period 1 May 1997 to 20 May 2002, 63 Chinese and 25 Zimbabwean military personnel have attended training courses at United Kingdom military establishments. A full breakdown of the courses attended and numbers trained by country is as follows.
	
		China and Zimbabwe military trained in UK between 1 May 1997 and 20 May 2002
		
			 Year (FY)(2) China(3) Zimbabwe(3) 
		
		
			 1997–98 1 13 
			 1998–99 1 7 
			 1999–2000 4 4 
			 2000–01 11 1 
			 2001–02 27 0 
			 2002 19 0 
			  
			 Total 63 25 
		
	
	(2) Financial year
	(3) Military students
	Note:
	Numbers include Royal College of Defence Studies and Defence Diplomacy Scholarship Schemes.
	
		
			 Course title Number of students Dates 
		
		
			 Courses attended by China(4)   
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 1997 
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 1998 
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 1999 
			 International Intelligence Directors 1 1999–2000 
			 Diploma in Defence Diplomacy 2 1999–2000 
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 2000 
			 Advanced Command and Staff Course 1 2000–01 
			 Beaconsfield Military English Course 3 2000–01 
			 English Language Training for China 3 2000–01 
			 Defence Diplomacy Scholarship—MSc Global Security 1 2000–01 
			 Diploma in Defence Diplomacy 2 2000–02 
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 2001 
			 Chinese English Language Training 6 2001–02 
			 Advanced Command and Staff Course 1 2001–02 
			 English Language Training for China 2 2001–02 
			 Beaconsfield Military English Course 6 2001–02 
			 Diploma in Defence Diplomacy 2 2001–02 
			 Defence Diplomacy Scholarship—MSc Global Security 1 2001–02 
			 Master of Defence Administration 1 2001–02 
			 Diploma in Defence Diplomacy 3 2001–02 
			 International Peace Support Briefing Package 4 2001–02 
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 2002 
			 Chinese English Language Training 6 2002–03 
			 English for Advanced Command and Staff Course 2 2002–03 
			 Peacekeeping Basic Skills Course 10 2002–03 
			  
			 Total 63 — 
			 Courses attended by Zimbabwe(4)   
			 Preparation for Commissioning Course 4 1997–98 
			 Commissioning Course 3 1997–98 
			 Advanced Command and Staff Course 1 1997–98 
			 Military Vehicle Technology 1 1997–98 
			 Artificer Weapons O/S 2 1997–98 
			 REME Company Commanders Course 1 1997–98 
			 Total Quality Leaders Course 1 1997–98 
			 Royal College of Defence Studies 1 1998 
			 Commissioning Course 3 1998–99 
			 Preparation for Commissioning Course 1 1998–99 
			 Artificer Weapons O/S 2 1998–99 
			 Advanced Command and Staff Course 2 1999–2000 
			 Commissioning Course 2 1999–2000 
			 MSc in Designing Information Systems 1 2001–01 
			  
			 Total 25 — 
		
	
	(4) 1 May 1997 to 20 May 2002

Armed Forces (Women)

Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the outcome of the study into the employment of women in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: Women play a vital role in the armed forces. They have made, and continue to make, a valuable contribution to recent and current operations. The great majority of posts in the armed forces are already open to them. Only posts in the Royal Marines General Service, Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps, the Infantry and Royal Air Force Regiment remain closed for reasons of combat effectiveness.
	Following a detailed study into the performance and suitability of women in these close-combat roles, I have concluded that the case for lifting the current restrictions has not been made. I am today placing in the House of Commons Library the report of this study, entitled "Women in the Armed Forces", together with a short paper explaining the reasons for the decision.
	Although women are, on average, less able to meet the physical demands of these roles, some women would certainly be able to do so and this was not, therefore, in itself, a reason to exclude them.
	The key issue was whether the inclusion of women in close combat teams could adversely affect the combat effectiveness of those teams in a high-intensity direct fire battle. All the units in question operate primarily in small units as fire teams or tank crews.
	The evidence available suggests that on operations other than close combat the presence of women in small units does not affect performance detrimentally. However, there is no evidence to show whether this remains the case under the extraordinary conditions of high intensity close combat.
	Given the lack of relevant direct evidence, from either field studies or the experience of other countries, I have concluded that military judgment must form the basis of the decision. The military advice is that under the conditions of a high-intensity, close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences. To admit women, therefore, would involve a risk without any offsetting gains in terms of combat effectiveness.
	The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 allows the armed forces to exclude women from close combat posts. The judgment of the European Court of Justice in Sirdar v. the Army Board and the Secretary of State and relevant European Community equality law uphold that position, subject to a requirement periodically to assess the position.
	The Ministry of Defence is committed to equality of opportunity consistent with the need to maintain combat effectiveness. It will continue to work with the Equal Opportunities Commission and discuss with it the results of further work to examine the wider issues raised by this study. Women must have the same opportunities as men to progress to the highest ranks.

Nuclear Weapons

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the United Kingdom's (a) possession and (b) use of nuclear weapons and the basis for this policy.

Geoff Hoon: I refer my hon. Friend to Chapter 4 and Supporting Essay Five of the Strategic Defence Review, and also to the answer I gave him on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 30W.

Nuclear Weapons

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution of nuclear weapons to the security of the United Kingdom.

Geoff Hoon: I refer my hon. Friend to Chapter 4 and Supporting Essay Five of the Strategic Defence Review.

RAF Bases (Scotland)

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what investigation has been carried out into the security implications of the suggested commercial use of RAF bases in Scotland; what the outcome was of this investigation; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what representations have been made to his Department by private airline companies with regards to RAF bases in Scotland, including the dates of representations and the bases discussed; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  what representations his Department made to commercial airline companies concerning the possibility of commercial use of RAF bases in Scotland; if he will list these representations by (a) date and (b) airline concerned; and if he will make a statement;
	(4)  what costings have been made with regard to the commercial use of (a) RAF Kinloss, (b) RAF Lossiemouth and (c) RAF Leuchars; if these costings were passed on to commercial airline companies; and if he will make a statement;
	(5)  what the conclusions of Strike Command's feasibility study were for each of the Scottish RAF bases; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 21 May 2002
	As part of the Government's wider market initiative, RAF Strike Command is considering the feasibility for commercial exploitation of irreducible spare capacity at RAF Leuchars. No other airfields in Scotland have so far been considered. The RAF Leuchars study is at an early stage with the team currently examining whether commercial exploitation of irreducible spare capacity is feasible. As a part of this work, consultants have sought the views of the airline operator community; however, the detailed findings are commercially sensitive. The feasibility study has no remit to address the issue of what the costs might be for a commercial airline company to operate scheduled services from RAF Leuchars. Initial indications suggest that there might be some irreducible surplus airfield capacity at RAF Leuchars. However, until the Ministry of Defence formally seeks proposals from industry as part of an open and competitive process, my officials cannot fully evaluate the potential for the commercial exploitation at RAF Leuchars. A security assessment has not been undertaken at this stage of the feasibility study.
	Some three weeks ago, Ryan Air expressed an interest in introducing new routes into Scotland, possibly using RAF airfields. Their formal proposals are awaited. No Ministry of Defence Minister or official has met representatives of commercial airline companies to discuss the commercial use of RAF stations in Scotland. Apart from occasional use by civil air operators permitted by existing MOD regulations, no formal proposals have been put forward by airline companies for the operation of scheduled services from any of the RAF stations located in Scotland.

Departmental Main Building (PFI Project)

Richard Bacon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what the total professional fees were for the redevelopment of his Department's main building, broken down by the (a) payer and (b) payee;
	(2)  what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by his Department to the Modus consortium will be over the lifetime of his Department's main building PFI project using his Department's inflation assumptions for the redevelopment of his Department's main building;
	(3)  what the total (a) refurbishment and (b) operating costs are in the PFI project for the redevelopment of his Department's main building, broken down by the principal cost headings used;
	(4)  what assumptions have been made about inflation in the PFI deal for the redevelopment of his Department's main building.

Adam Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Exercises (Spending)

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total spend has been on exercises for each of the services in the past four years.

Adam Ingram: Exercises are a fundamental activity for all military units not on operations at every level. To isolate, identify and cost the requested information, even if it were possible, could be done only at disproportionate cost.

Annington Homes

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the houses sold back to Annington Homes have been (a) grade 1, (b) grade II, (c) grade III and (d) grade IV since 1996; how much was spent on the repair and renovation of these houses in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it has generally been the practice to upgrade to Standard 1 for Condition those properties which are required as longer term core stock for service family occupation. Those which are not so required are disposed of, mainly by handing them back to Annington Homes Ltd., to whom the equity in the housing stock (in England and Wales) was sold in 1996.

Flying Hours

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average number of flying hours in each of the last 12 months for pilots in (a) 9 Squadron, (b) 12 Squadron, (c) 14 Squadron, (d) 31 Squadron, (e) 617 Squadron, (f) 11 Squadron, (g) 25 Squadron, (h) 43 Squadron, (i) 111 Squadron, (j) 6 Squadron, (k) 41 Squadron, (l) 54 Squadron, (m) 1 Squadron, (n) 3 Squadron and (o) 4 Squadron was.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 20 May 2002
	The following table details the average number of flying hours for each month from April 2001 to March 2002 for crews in the Squadrons listed:
	
		
			 Squadron no. April 2001 May 2001 June 2001 July 2001 August 2001 September 2001 October 2001 November 2001 December 2001 January 2002 February 2002 March 2002 
		
		
			 1 16.02 21.04 26.28 23.12 22.72 18.62 20.78 18.26 11.59 16.33 18.78 23.46 
			 3 16.11 19.46 20.82 20.71 10.26 17.70 23.46 20.75 11.88 16.45 19.11 21.72 
			 4 17.44 21.52 19.50 13.54 17.08 11.11 21.30 18.61 9.50 20.08 14.96 18.23 
			 6 16.04 21.13 26.51 14.38 24.93 17.61 18.16 17.71 9.40 17.56 21.87 16.58 
			 9 16.48 12.54 11.44 13.01 16.31 21.31 18.87 19.92 12.45 17.95 12.48 15.57 
			 11 9.76 14.15 16.12 31.38 13.63 16.38 30.13 18.51 15.46 19.44 14.81 16.74 
			 12 17.18 18.92 18.01 16.24 5.14 20.22 19.51 16.24 11.23 16.14 21.80 11.02 
			 14 15.89 17.16 16.10 14.43 15.76 13.80 10.26 15.84 10.84 17.80 14.15 15.76 
			 25 16.88 13.49 13.35 17.06 11.93 16.84 15.40 16.17 11.19 16.34 23.21 11.27 
			 31 7.81 19.96 4.59 20.56 11.51 19.80 19.83 15.21 9.15 11.78 16.15 24.07 
			 41 16.40 19.61 21.01 23.38 18.85 17.92 20.14 16.59 13.67 15.61 16.97 18.21 
			 43 14.55 10.59 17.97 9.26 12.59 10.66 18.46 23.45 7.54 13.73 18.90 14.25 
			 54 15.47 18.23 21.93 15.74 13.91 16.46 24.40 19.04 11.24 17.90 12.63 15.58 
			 111 17.64 15.51 16.96 18.59 17.83 28.14 17.03 14.65 9.39 15.71 12.87 16.91 
			 617 13.14 9.88 21.62 15.55 9.73 19.59 25.99 13.33 9.02 14.08 14.85 14.99

Macedonia

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the European Union will be ready to take over in the autumn Operation Amber Fox in Macedonia.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 20 May 2002
	NATO has been invited by the Macedonian Government to extend the mandate of Operation Amber Fox for a further four months until 26 October 2002. The Netherlands will take over from Germany as lead-nation on 26 June 2002.
	At Barcelona, the European Council expressed the European Union's availability to take responsibility for a follow-on to the NATO mission in Macedonia, Operation Amber Fox, following Macedonian elections set for 15 September 2002, and if the Macedonian Government so requested. The offer was conditional on the permanent arrangement on EU-NATO co-operation ("Berlin Plus") being in place by then.
	At the present time no decision has been reached on the requirement for any follow-on mission.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of weapons of mass destruction are held by the United Kingdom.

Geoff Hoon: There is no universally accepted definition of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", but it is generally held to refer to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The UK possesses no chemical or biological weapons. It holds nuclear weapons lawfully, and is one of the category of nuclear weapons states as defined in Article 9(3) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Afghanistan

Paul Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the United Kingdom armed forces from the (a) Royal Navy, (b) RAF and (c) Army are assigned to operations in and around Afghanistan; what percentage of coalition forces in Afghanistan this represents; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 21 May 2002
	As at 20 May 2002 there are 3,100 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel, 630 RAF personnel and 1,550 Army personnel operating in and around Afghanistan. Our forces in Afghanistan currently represent around 20 per cent. of the coalition forces operating there.
	The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the task of helping to break the link between Afghanistan and terrorism for good, and we are making a substantial contribution to coalition operations in Afghanistan, both through warfighting and security assistance duties. Numbers in theatre vary according to the operational tempo, and so the figures here merely represent a snapshot in time.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Treasury Solicitor's Framework Document

Kali Mountford: To ask the Solicitor-General what changes the Attorney-General plans to make in the Treasury Solicitor's framework document.

Harriet Harman: In his quinquennial review of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Sir Quentin Thomas recommended that the framework document for the Treasury Solicitor's Department should be revised to provide the agency with the flexibilities it required to continue to meet the growing demand for efficient and high quality legal services from Government Departments and other publicly funded bodies in England and Wales. I am pleased to announce the publication of a revised framework document, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.
	The framework document has also been published on the Treasury Solicitor's website (www.treasury-solicitor.gov.uk).

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Global Environmental Facility

David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 
	(1)  how much assistance the Government have given to the global environmental facility since 1997;
	(2)  which countries have received assistance from the global environmental facility since 1997.

Clare Short: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 16 May 2002, Official Report, column 748W.

Debt Relief

Andrew Love: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of vulture funds on debt relief for countries; what action she is taking on this issue; and if she will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: I have been asked to reply.
	Under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative eligible countries should receive debt relief from all creditors. However, a number of commercial creditors decline to provide debt relief and sue the HIPC for payment. Vulture funds specialise in purchasing debt at a discount in the secondary market and then suing for repayment in full. At their last meeting, HIPC Finance Ministers raised the issue of lawsuits against them from various creditors in their declaration. The UK Government has proposed that the international community should consider giving technical assistance to any HIPC being sued by a commercial creditor and provide expert financial advice on debt restructuring to prevent future claims.

TREASURY

Cocaine

Barbara Follett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps are being taken to combat the smuggling of cocaine into the UK by air passengers from Jamaica.

Paul Boateng: I have today signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Jamaica to enable joint action to combat the use of air passengers to smuggle cocaine into the UK concealed in their bodies. The UK will be providing technical assistance and intelligence support to enable the Jamaican authorities to detect potential cocaine couriers before they board flights to the UK and take appropriate enforcement action.
	Action in Jamaica will be supported by increased activity by Customs here in the UK. As part of the recent Budget package, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the resources available to Customs for law enforcement action at the frontier. Customs will be deploying more than 30 additional specialist anti- smuggling staff to combat a range of smuggling threats. Their first priority will be to enhance controls on flights arriving from Jamaica, focusing on identifying any couriers who have escaped detection in Jamaica and on the smuggling of cocaine in passengers' baggage and air freight.
	Customs will continue to work closely with a number of police forces, including the Metropolitan police's Operation Trident team, to maximise the impact of their efforts on cocaine smuggling and on associated, often violent, criminality across the UK.

Contracts

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  if he will make a statement on the continued use of retentions in relation to public procurement contracts;
	(2)  whether Government Departments will continue the practice of requiring retentions when negotiating contracts with outside contractors.

Andrew Smith: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 29 January 2002, Official Report, column 168W.

National Insurance

Howard Flight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the Treasury's calculations for establishing the total cost to the public sector of the 1 per cent. rise in employers' national insurance contributions from April 2003.

Andrew Smith: The estimate of just over £1 billion is based on a percentage of total employer national insurance contributions attributed to the public sector using assumptions supplied by the Revenue departments.

National Insurance

Anthony Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of additional class 1 secondary national insurance contributions to come from (a) public sector employers and (b) private sector employers in 2003–04.

Dawn Primarolo: It is estimated that the changes to employer NICs announced in the Budget will add around 0.7 per cent. to pay costs on average next year. The cost to public services will be just over £1 billion which compares with a planned rise in spending on public services of nearly £20 billion. The changes will help to fund improvements to public services and a real terms increase in spending on health over the next five years of over 40 per cent.

Credits

Tim Boswell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since June 2001 on delays in crediting (a) contracting-out rebates and (b) employers' contributions to pension schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: holding answer 16 May 2002
	The information on (a) is not available and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
	The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has advised me that on (b) the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) received reports about delays in employer payments to occupational pension schemes, stakeholder and personal pension schemes. Since June 2001, reports have been received by Opra as follows:
	
		
			  Reports 
		
		
			 Occupational pension schemes 10,257 
			 Personal pensions 152,510 
			 Stakeholder pensions 8,271 
		
	
	Of these, only a small proportion was serious enough to lead to a sanction.

Economic and Monetary Union

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on discussions which have taken place between officials in his Department and those from Sweden on the timing of referenda on EMU membership.

Ruth Kelly: The Treasury has frequent discussions on a wide range of issues with its European counterparts.

Exotic Animals

Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how many consignments of exotic animals HM Customs and Excise have checked and inspected, broken down by month in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how many investigations HM Customs and Excise have undertaken into illegal imports of wild animals since 1997; what has been the outcome of prosecutions undertaken; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  how many HM Customs officers are trained in CITES-related issues; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: There are no central records which separately identify checks and inspections of exotic animals or investigations into illegal imports of wild animals. Details of prosecutions since 1997 involving imports of live animals are
	2000—one person convicted
	2002 (to date)—three persons convicted, one person acquitted.
	Training in CITES related issues is part of the standard training of the approximately 3,800 Customs detection staff and other staff whose work involves CITES issues.

E-Procurement

Richard Allan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the development of e-procurement in Government purchasing.

Andrew Smith: The Office of Government Commerce is currently running pilot projects in e-procurement in seven Departments aimed at learning about the issues arising from the deployment of e-procurement systems. This information, together with the lessons learned from the recently concluded e-tendering pilot, will allow Government to make a full assessment of the options that will work best and ensure value for money. Plans for further development of e-procurement in Government purchasing will be announced later this year.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the mandate of the Contact Committee European economic interest grouping is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: I have been asked to reply.
	The mandate of the European Economic Interest Grouping Contact Committee is set out at article 42 of the Council Regulation of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (2137/85/EEC). Its functions are as follows:
	(a) to facilitate, without prejudice to articles 169 and 170 of the treaty, application of the regulation through regular consultation dealing in particular with practical problems arising in connection with its application;
	(b) to advise the Commission, if necessary, on additions or amendments to the regulation.
	The committee has not met in the last 12 months and, consequently, there have been no costs incurred by the Department associated with the work of the committee and there are no on-going issues subject to its consideration. The UK would be represented in meetings of the committee by officials and lawyers of the Department.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Ruth Kelly: Treasury Ministers have made no such appointments.

Customs and Excise

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise from Customs (Import) duty and VAT charges paid by United Kingdom recipients of postal packages sent from countries outwith the EU in each year since 1995.

Paul Boateng: It is not possible to provide the requested estimates due to lack of data on these specific transactions.

Private Members' Bills

Tony McWalter: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written representations he has received from hon. Members in support of the (a) Industrial and Provident Societies Bill and (b) Employee Share Scheme Bill.

Ruth Kelly: The Treasury received 177 written representations from hon. Members in support of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill and six in support of the Employee Share Schemes Bill.

National Insurance (Scotland)

Michael Weir: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total cost to Scotland's (a) health trusts and (b) local authorities of the payment of the revenue in employees' national insurance in the year 2002–03.

Dawn Primarolo: The cost of national insurance contributions to these employers will remain similar between 2001–02 and 2002–03.

Oil and Gas Industry (Taxation)

Bob Blizzard: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value is of the threshold of profitability referred to in paragraph five of the paper he published as part of his letter to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) of 8 May.

Dawn Primarolo: The threshold of profitability referred to in the paper is not a cash figure. It is based on a measure of profitability expressed as the ratio of net present value to the pre-tax cost of the investment. The precise threshold of this ratio up to which net present value of projects is improved depends on various factors such as the discount rate used by the investor. But in general, projects below the threshold are likely to be the more marginal ones; those above threshold the more economically attractive ones.

Tax Credits

David Willetts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are expected to be eligible for the increased children's tax credit because they have a child born during 2001–02.

Dawn Primarolo: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 15 January 2002, Official Report, column 244W.

Voluntary Sports Clubs

Bob Russell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sports are not eligible for the Inland Revenue tax exemptions and charitable status for voluntary sports clubs; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: Clubs eligible for the Inland Revenue scheme will be determined by the national sports councils. Clubs eligible for charitable status will be those that meet the criteria of 'the promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of particular sports'.

Environmental Taxes

Robert Key: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to review UK environmental taxes and their impact both on (a) business and (b) the environment.

Paul Boateng: The Government keeps all taxation policy under review and publishes updated estimates of the environmental impacts of taxation in the pre-Budget report and the Budget each year.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Non-governmental Organisations

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list non-governmental organisations operating in the south west region that receive public funds from his Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Ian McCartney: There are no non-governmental organisations operating in the south west region that receive funds from the Department for Work and Pensions.

Correspondence

John Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects a reply to be sent to the letters to the Minister of State for Pensions dated 31 October 2001 and 2 July 2001 concerning Mrs. Anita Stamp of Mayland.

Ian McCartney: The response was issued on 9 April 2002 with an apology for the delay which was due to an administrative error. The particular circumstances that gave rise to this delay have been fully reviewed and the related procedural arrangements have been strengthened to prevent a recurrence.

Medical Services Contract

Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further progress has been made on formalising the extension of the medical services contract with SchlumbergerSema.

Nick Brown: The Department reviewed the performance of SchlumbergerSema against a series of performance targets and other contractual obligations to be met by 31 March 2002 and has confirmed the contract extension to August 2005.
	The agreement with SchlumbergerSema contained a total of 45 key performance targets. These targets, in each of the three contract packages, covered the following areas:
	IB examinations
	DLA primary target for examinations
	IISB primary and secondary examination targets
	Customers turned away unseen
	Customer waiting time
	Customer satisfaction levels
	Percentage of unacceptable (C grade medical reports)
	Compliance with medical scrutiny guidelines
	Complaint turnaround time and quality levels [ 5 targets]
	Rework accuracy.
	SchlumbergerSema met 43 out of the 45 targets set by 31 March and met the remaining 2 targets during April 2002.
	In addition to the key performance targets, the contract contains a number of other performance measures, the vast majority of which are now being achieved. Performance is formally monitored on a monthly basis. If performance falls below agreed targets remedial action is taken, including the application of financial remedies where appropriate.
	During 2000 (prior to the Department setting targets relating to contract extension) the Department set four challenging targets where tangible improvement in medical quality was required. These were:
	Within six months to reduce by 10 per cent. the proportion of "C grade" medical reports which fail to meet the Department's standards; and within one year to reduce the proportion of "C grade" reports across all benefits to less than 5 per cent.
	Within one year to demonstrate improvement in compliance with the agreed medical scrutiny guidelines for Incapacity Benefit claims so that the proportion of non-compliant reports is less than 5 per cent.
	Within one year to deliver training to all doctors covering: the assessment of people with mental health problems; behaviours, attitudes and sensitivities for dealing with people with disabilities; and distress- avoiding techniques for the examination of people with musculo-skeletal conditions.
	Within two years to improve customer satisfaction rates to at least 90 per cent.
	These service targets have all been met. The agreement to extend the Contract contains a further set of quality improvement measures, including even more challenging measures relating to the quality of medical reports, together with new a doctor capability measure and a new complaints target.
	Additionally, the agreement commits SchlumbergerSema to a programme of doctor recruitment and requires them to deliver a number of other important initiatives. These include:
	National implementation of the "Did Not Attend" initiative which will reduce the number of claimants who are given an appointment but fail to attend. Results from the pilot undertaken show significant reductions and this new process will be rolled out across all Medical Service Centres by the end of June 2002.
	National implementation of "Evidence Based Medicine" which aims to secure more consistency in conducting medical examinations and to improve the quality of medical reports by using fully researched medical protocols for examination supported by an IT application.
	Piloting a new approach to evidence gathering where Doctors advising on Incapacity Benefit claims will have access to relevant medical information from the claimant's General Practitioner case notes.
	Contractual milestones for the remaining life of the extended contract have been agreed for each of the key improvement projects underway, supported by financial remedies for failure to deliver against key milestones. The Department, through joint Project and Programme Boards, will continue to monitor closely the progress of each project.
	The Department has also secured a range of other contractual improvements including greater cost transparency to underpin future commercial negotiations.

Rural Awareness

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  when his Department will establish rural targets and monitoring as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02";
	(2)  when his Department will implement proofing and checklist measures as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02";
	(3)  when his Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff (a) training, (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02".

Nick Brown: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Minister for Rural Affairs on 9 May 2002, Official Report, columns 273–75W.

Disability Living Allowance

Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of higher rate disability living allowance on the basis of autism-related disruption during the night.

Maria Eagle: Information is not available in the form requested. The most recent available information, which relates to 30 November 2001, is that there are about 39,300 recipients of the maximum rate of the disability living allowance care or mobility component, who have learning difficulties recorded as their principal disabling condition and whose needs include care during the night.
	This information is based on 5 per cent. data and rounded to the nearest hundred.

Disability Living Allowance

Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are in receipt of disability living allowance in respect of autism.

Maria Eagle: Information is not available in the form requested. The most recent available information, which relates to 30 November 2001, is that there are about 226,700 disability living allowance recipients with learning difficulties as their principal disabling condition.
	This figure is based on 5 per cent. data and rounded to the nearest hundred.

Property Protection

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what new measures his Department took in 2001–02 to protect its property from theft or damage.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 10 April 2002
	The Department takes its responsibility for the security of its people, physical property, and information very seriously. We continually evaluate the trend in fraud and theft and introduce appropriate systems of security. However, in order to ensure the effectiveness of these measures, it is the Department's policy not to disclose the details of these actions (part 2, paragraph 4 Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

Unpaid Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the names of the unpaid advisers appointed by him and his predecessor since June 1997, stating in each case (a) the date of their appointment, (b) the duration of their appointment and (c) the project or projects on which they have been engaged.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 25 March 2002
	Since June 1997, there have been no unpaid advisers appointed in line with the requirements of Paragraph 51 of the Ministerial Code.
	For details of appointments made by this Department to task forces, review groups and other ad hoc advisory groups, I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), on 16 November 2001, Official Report, column 958W.

Savings Credit

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether it is his intention that pensioners receiving the savings credit should receive the same amount of housing benefit and council tax benefit as they would if the savings credit were not introduced.

Ian McCartney: The Government are investing £450 million a year in the housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes to ensure that people who gain from pension credit do not lose those gains because of knock-on effects. As a consequence, almost 1.9 million pensioner households will be entitled to more help, or entitled to help for the first time, with their rent or council tax from October 2003.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Ian McCartney: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

Pensions

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the script used by staff at Pensions Service call centres to respond to new telephone claims for retirement pensions.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 20 May 2002
	There is no formal script used when making telephone application for retirement pension. Our agents have an "interactive" electronic claim form that prompts them to ask for the relevant information, but does not specify the words they use to do this.
	As part of our commitment to provide a first class service to our customers, we will provide all of our customer agents with a two-week "customer experience" training programme. This will equip them with the tools they need to deal sensitively with our customers.

Pensions

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prospective pensioners have received combined pensions forecasts to date; and what his target number is of recipients for each of the next three years.

Ian McCartney: To date state pension information has been provided to pension scheme providers to enable the issue of 33,662 combined pension statements.
	A further 15,000 records have recently been provided to enable the issue of combined pension statements by the scheme provider in the near future.
	The on-going recruitment of providers will build to a service that enables the private sector to issue up to 15 million forecasts by 2005–06. Precise volumes are difficult to predict year-on-year as this is dependent on take-up levels within the industry.

Pensions

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will update his estimates based on the Family Resources Survey 1999–2000 of (a) median pensioner incomes, excluding means-tested benefits, by age, sex and marital status, on the basis of his answer of 16 November 2000, Official Report, column 790W, on pensions, and (b) the size of each group.

Ian McCartney: The information requested is in the table. It should be noted that the "median income" represents the income of the person or family exactly in the middle of the range of ranked incomes of the age group. For each age group there is a wide range of incomes.
	
		Pensioner incomes
		
			   Age 60–64 Age 65–69 Age 70–74 Age 75–79 Age 80+ 
		
		
			 Single males  
			 Median income (£) n/a 136 138 126 118 
			 Number n/a 240,000 230,000 230,000 270,000 
			   
			 Single females  
			 Median income (£) 132 119 106 110 103 
			 Number 380,000 540,000 610,000 700,000 900,000 
			   
			 Couples  
			 Median income (£) n/a 281 233 216 178 
			 Number n/a 1,010,000 780,000 580,000 320,000 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. The data are from the Family Resources Survey 1999–2000 and are rounded to the nearest £1 or 10,000.
	2. Estimates are for pensioner units. Pensioner units are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.
	3. Pensioner units are allocated to age categories according to the age of the head. The head of a couple is defined as the man.
	4. Estimates have not been split by gender for couples as the extent of income sharing within pensioner units is not known.
	5. Means-tested benefits refer to minimum income guarantee, working families' tax credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and social fund grants.
	6. These results are based on survey respondents' identification of different elements of benefit income, and are therefore subject to misreporting.

Benefit Claimants

Tony Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants of (a) disability living allowance and (b) incapacity benefit in (i) West Dunbartonshire and (ii) the UK have taken up work and remained in employment for longer than a year since the introduction of the linking rule.

Nick Brown: Disability living allowance is payable regardless of whether or not the recipient is in work, providing that the qualifying criteria continue to be met. No linking rules therefore apply.
	Information on the number of people who have stopped receiving incapacity benefit to take up work, and have remained in employment for longer than a year since the extension of the linking rule to 52 weeks is not available.

Benefit Claimants

Tony Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants of (a) disability living allowance and (b) incapacity benefit in (i) West Dunbartonshire and (ii) the United Kingdom have taken up work and subsequently been able to reclaim and receive those benefits within a year owing to the linking rule.

Nick Brown: Disability living allowance is payable regardless of whether or not the recipient is in work, providing that the qualifying criteria continue to be met. No linking rules therefore apply.
	From 5 October 1998 we extended the linking rules for incapacity benefit to 52 weeks to allow disabled people to try out work safe in the knowledge that they can return to the same rate of benefit if the job does not work out.
	The available information in respect of incapacity benefit is in the table.
	
		
			  1 December 1998 to 30 November 2000 
		
		
			 People in Great Britain  
			 Who stopped claiming incapacity benefit to start work(5) 48,400 
			 Who returned to incapacity benefit from full-time work or employment training within 52 weeks 9,500 
			   
			 People in West Dunbartonshire  
			 Who stopped claiming incapacity benefit to start work (6)2,003 
			 Who returned to incapacity benefit from full-time work or employment training within 52 weeks (7)— 
		
	
	(5) Figure refers only to people leaving incapacity benefit who declare that they are moving into work within seven days and protect their rate of benefit in payment for the following year. It does not represent all people who leave incapacity benefit.
	(6) This figure is taken from a small number of sample cases and is subject to a high degree of sampling error. It should therefore only be used as an indication of the current situation.
	(7) Denotes a negligible figure.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
	2. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	3. The 52-week linking rule was introduced from 5 October 1998 for people who leave incapacity benefit to go into paid work or employment training. Information on the number benefiting from the change is available on the incapacity benefit computer system from 1 December 1998.
	Source:
	Figures are taken from 5 per cent. samples of the incapacity benefit computer system in Great Britain and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

International Social Security Agreements

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when each international reciprocal social security agreement was entered into; and what the extent of the reciprocity is in each case.

Maria Eagle: pursuant to her reply, 16 May 2002, c. 854W
	The information on reciprocal social security agreements with other countries follows.
	The main purpose of such reciprocal agreements is to protect the social security position of workers moving between the two countries during their working lives. They prevent employees, their employers and the self-employed from having to pay social security contributions to both the home state and the state of employment at the same time and ensure that such workers' rights to certain benefits are maintained. They vary to some extent from country to country depending on the nature and scope of the other country's social security scheme. Generally, they cover contributory benefits in respect of the following contingencies: sickness, invalidity, unemployment, retirement, bereavement and industrial injuries. Workers who have contributed to both countries' schemes during their working lives can usually receive an old age pension from each country which reflects the proportionate amount or their insurance in, or contributions to, each country's scheme.
	Current reciprocal social security agreements and the year they came into force
	Austria—1981 (replaced the 1971 agreement)
	Barbados—1992
	Belgium—1958
	Bermuda—1969
	Canada—1995 (replaced the 1959 agreement)
	Cyprus—1983 (replaced the 1959 agreement)
	Denmark—1960
	Finland—1984 (replaced the 1959 agreement
	France—1958
	Germany—1961
	Gibraltar—1974
	Iceland—1985
	Ireland—1960
	Isle of Man—1977 (replaced the 1948 agreement)
	Israel—1957
	Italy—1953
	Jamaica—1997 (replaced the 1972 agreement)
	Jersey and Guernsey—1994 (replaced the 1978 agreement)
	Luxembourg—1955
	Malta—1996 (replaced the 1956 agreement)
	Mauritius—1981
	Netherlands—1955
	New Zealand—1983 (replaced the 1969 agreement)
	Norway—1991 (replaced the 1957 agreement)
	Philippines—1989
	Portugal—1979
	Spain—1975
	Sweden—1988 (replaced the 1956 agreement)
	Switzerland—1969
	Turkey—1961
	USA—1984 (replaced the 1969 agreement
	Yugoslavia—1958 (now applies to: the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Serbia-Montenegro), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).

NORTHERN IRELAND

Fraud

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in (a) his Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.

Jane Kennedy: The amount of loss to fraud and corruption in (a) Department's Vote 1 budget in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01 was:
	
		£ 
		
			  The Northern Ireland Office Its agencies Non-departmental public bodies 
		
		
			 1999–2000 Nil 19,143.45 16,010.00 
			 2000–01 Nil 5,243.11 135.00 
		
	
	Note:
	The total cost to the Department was £40,531.56, ie £51,718.65 less amount recovered of £11,187.09.
	The information requested in part (b) is not available. The Vote 2 budget is divided among the devolved Northern Ireland Departments. Any losses incurred through fraud are a matter for the individual Departments involved.

Prisons

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners can be accommodated at each prison in Northern Ireland; and how many prisoners are in each prison.

Jane Kennedy: The maximum number of prisoner places available in Northern Ireland and the current number of prisoners is as follows:
	
		
			 Establishment Total available prisoner places Total prisoners as at 13 May 2002 
		
		
			 HMP Maghaberry 594 565 
			 HMP Magilligan 341 321 
			 HM YOC 172 135 
		
	
	A rolling refurbishment programme means that a number of cells are presently out of commission, the numbers are as follows:
	HMP Maghaberry 109 cells
	HMP Magilligan 40 cells
	HM YOC 130 cells.
	Some cells are currently being used by two prisoners to facilitate the accommodation of prisoners from cells that are under renovation. This is in accordance with Health and Safety regulations.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve his Department.

Jane Kennedy: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Implementation of the Multiannual Community Programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote linguistic diversity in the information society eContent is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The Multiannual Community programme to stimulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote the linguistic diversity in the information society (known as the eContent programme) was established under Council Decision 2001/48/EC. The Decision required the establishment of a committee, the mandate of which is to assist the Commission in running the programme. In particular the Committee will be informed of progress with the implementation of the programme as a whole on at least a half yearly basis. The Commission will also seek approval of the Committee for the funding of any projects with a Community contribution of over 700,000 euros. The Committee has met three times over the last 12 months. The UK representation is usually one official from the Department for Trade and Industry. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	Current issues before the Committee are drawing up a new work programme for the second half of the programme and overseeing a mid-term evaluation of the programme. It will also be involved in preparing a call for proposals towards the end of the year.
	We submitted an explanatory memorandum on the proposal for a Council Decision to the House of Commons and House of Lords on 2 October 2002. The Commons European Scrutiny Committee considered it politically important and cleared, but asked that any significant changes should be reported before it was put to Council for Common position (there were in fact no significant changes and the Scrutiny Committee removed the item from the list of outstanding business).
	Together with members states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees (like the eContent Programme Committee) into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM (2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through the Commission's website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on Projects of Common Interest in the field of trans- European telecommunications networks (TEN-telecom) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The information requested is included in the reply to parliamentary question no. 55688 answered today.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for granting community financial aid in the field of trans-European telecommunications networks is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The trans-European telecommunications networks (TEN-Telecom) programme is part of the trans-European networks (TENs) initiative established under Article 156 of the treaty and is governed by the general rules for the granting of community aid in the field of trans-European networks (regulation 2236/95, amended by regulation 1655/99). In addition, regulation 1336/97 established a series of guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks. Both regulations require the establishment of a committee, the mandate of which is to assist the Commission in the implementation of the regulations. The TENs financial committee relating to telecommunications and the TEN-Telecom guidelines committee have the same membership and meet in joint sittings.
	The committees have met three times over the last 12 months. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	Current issues before the committees are: drawing up a new work programme to implement the revision to the programme guidelines for the identification of projects of common interest which is currently being considered by the European Parliament; revising the evaluation process for project proposals; and preparing for calls for proposals in June and October 2002.
	We have submitted explanatory memoranda to the House of Commons and House of Lords scrutiny committees on the TEN-Telecom programme, most recently: on the implementation of the programme guidelines and the development of the revised guidelines (Report 22, Item 23071, Session 2001/02); on the overall evaluation of the guidelines for the development of Euro-Integrated Services Digital Network as a trans- European network (Report 26, Item 21293, Session 99/00); and on the Court of Auditors report on the programme (Report 26, Item 21266, Session 99/00). The Commons European Scrutiny Committee considered these politically important and cleared.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees (such as the TEN-Telecom committees) into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through the Commission's website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on security of information systems (SOS-GIS) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The mandate establishing SOG-IS was set out in Article 1 Council Decision 92/242/EEC of 31 March 1992 OJ L123 dated 08.05.92 p.19. The Committee has not met for over three years and there are no issues under consideration at present.
	Together with member states, the commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	As an obligation to this decision the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on electronic signatures is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The mandate establishing the Committee on electronic signatures was set out in Article 9(1) of the Directive 99/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures OJL13 dated 19 January 2001 page 12. The committee has not met for nearly two years and there are no issues under consideration at present.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the Management of Generalised Preference is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The functions of the Generalised Preference Committee are set out in the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001). Its function is to assist the Commission in the implementation of the GSP Regulation. According to the GSP Regulation (Article 37),
	"The Committee may examine any matter relating to the application of this regulation raised by the Commission or at the request of a Member State". Thus, due to the nature of the committee, it does not meet regularly, but rather meets as and when necessary. It has met seven times since the beginning of May 2001. The DTI has lead policy responsibility for the GSP scheme as a whole, and therefore attends such meetings where possible. Such participation is an essential function of the Department's responsibilities. In addition, the UK Representation to the European Union normally attends where possible.
	It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	The items currently under consideration include: application for additional preference under Article 8 (Special Incentive Arrangements); management of quotas under Article 9 (Special Arrangements for Least Developed Countries); Commission proposals under Article 12 (Graduation on and off the scheme).
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". The effects of this decision have already been incorporated into the GSP Regulation and the operation of the GSP Committee. As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of the House on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent action, to be accessible through the website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on fees, implementation rules and the procedure of the boards of appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The committee's mandate is to assist the Commission in adopting fees and rules covering procedure before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (the Community trade mark and designs office) and its boards of appeal, as required by Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark and Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs.
	The committee has met four times in the last 12 months. The UK representation comprises appropriate experts from the Patent Office, depending on the subject matter of the meeting. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The current programme of work consists of agreement rules and fees relating to the new Community registered design system, which is expected to commence next year.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Textile Committee (Conventional Regime) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the Committee on Common Rules for Imports of Textile Products from Certain Third Countries (autonomous regime) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: These committees meet together as the "Textile Management Committee". Their mandate is to manage the EC's licensing control regimes for the import of textile products from WTO (conventional regime) and non-WTO countries (autonomous regime). The group has met eight times over the last year. A Department of Trade and Industry official represents the UK. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of its work without incurring disproportionate cost. This committee is currently considering the on-going management of the licensing regime for imports of certain textile products. Any EC legislation resulting from these committees is already subject to the parliamentary scrutiny procedures.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on state aid for the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories of horizontal state aid (exemption) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to the public funding; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on state aid on the arrangements for applying Article 93 of the EC Treaty (Procedure) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The Advisory Committee on state aid is established under Council Regulation 659/1999/EC. It has met once in the last 12 months and was attended by a departmental official and an officer from the UK Permanent Representation. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The committee is currently considering a draft regulation on matters concerning employment aid. Details of this proposal appeared for public consultation in the Official Journal 2002/C 88/02 on 12 April 2002.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Protection against Subsidised Imports is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Protection against Dumped Imports is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The mandate of the Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy Advisory Committee is to cover any European Commission anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proposals, and to discuss, as raised, third country actions against member states. The Committee generally meets on a monthly basis and written procedure is used to cover any outstanding issues as required. A Department of Trade and Industry official represents the UK. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The committee is currently considering various European Commission proposals on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy action. Any European Community legislation resulting from this committee is already subject to the parliamentary scrutiny procedures.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final) (Commission Document 5685/02). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the co-ordinating Group for the Community Regime for the Control of Exports of Dual-use Goods is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The mandate of the Co-ordination Group for the Community Regime for the Control of Exports of Dual-use Items and Technology is set out in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1334/2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 30 June 2000, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.
	The items under discussion include the type and quality of information transmitted to the Commission for publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities and distributed to member states under various Articles contained within the regulation; areas of concern encountered by member states in implementing the regulation and addressing potential difficulties before they arise; and the exchange of views relating to a recent questionnaire distributed by the Commission to candidate countries concerning implementation of the regulation. The Co-ordination Group has met four times in the last 12 months and is attended by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments as appropriate. Information on the annual cost to the UK Government is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	The committee has no power to take decisions that have any legal effect. Where the need for change to the regulation is found it is for the Commission to bring forward proposals for legislative amendments and all such proposals are subject to scrutiny in accordance with the existing arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of Community legislation.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee for the development of the internal market in postal services and the improvement of the quality of service is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The legal base for the committee is Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 15 December 1997, on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (the "Postal Directive"). It last met on 16 May 2001 and representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry and from the Postal Services Commission attended that meeting. Members of the UK's representation to the European Commission may also attend such meetings. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on public contracts is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The EC Advisory Committee on Public Procurement discusses issues and exchanges views in the field of public procurement. Since January 2001 the advisory committee has met on six occasions. Officials from the Office of Government Commerce represent the UK Government. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	At the last meeting of the advisory committee the items discussed were: the Common Procurement Vocabulary Regulation; Commission Directive on standard forms; Government Procurement Agreement revision; establishment of statistical data; international aspects of statistical data; Internal Market indicators; technical issues on Article 19a (contracts awarded to entities owned by a contracting authority) of the draft public sector directive; draft new rules of procedure.
	Together with EC member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001)783 Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Committee for granting community financial aid in the field of trans-European energy networks is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the committee for the implementation of the series of guidelines for trans- European energy networks is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The mandate of the committee granting Community financial aid in the field of trans-European energy networks (energy TENS) is Council Regulation 2236/95 (TENS Financial Assistance). Its role is to select EU energy infrastructure projects to receive financial support under the Community's guidelines for trans- European energy networks. These guidelines are agreed by the Committee for the implementation of the guidelines established under Decision 1254/EC. Eligible projects are those needed for effective integration and operation of the EU's energy market and in order to enhance the EU's security of energy supply.
	The (energy) TENS financial aid committee has met once over the last 12 months. UK representation is by an official from this Department. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. The (energy) TENS guidelines committee usually meets annually but has not met in the last 12 months. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	The European Commission has made proposals for changes to the form of funding and the definition of priority axes or links. In terms of accountability and transparency to Parliament, this Department has submitted two Explanatory Memoranda to the Commons Scrutiny Committee:
	EM 7291/2 concerning the European Commission's amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95/EC laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks, at its meeting on 8 May 2002; and
	EM 6990/2 concerning the European Commission's Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No. 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks.
	These documents were considered at the Scrutiny Committee's meeting of 8 May 2002, and were considered to be politically important and cleared.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com(2001)783 Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the implementation of open network provision (ONP) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The committee was established under the open network provisions directive (Council Directive 90/387/EEC on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision) to give its opinion on measures proposed by the Commission in the field of open network provision for telecommunications, after consulting representatives of the organisation providing telecommunications services, the users, the consumers, the manufacturers and the service providers. The Commission has met four times over the past 12 months: in July and October 2001 and February and April 2002.
	The UK representation normally consists of one official from DTI and two from Oftel, supplemented when required by specific agenda items by experts from either body. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate costs. Issues currently under consideration are: implementation of the new regulatory framework for electronic communications; sharing of information on local broadband access and leased lines; the adoption of the future internet protocol IPv6; mobile phone call termination cost structures; the introduction of the ".eu" domain name; universal service obligations; and the procedures for gathering information for the Commission's eighth report on the implementation of the current regulatory regime, due for publication at the end of this year.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on economic outward-processing arrangements for textiles is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The mandate of this committee is to manage the EC's economic outward-processing arrangements for textiles (OPT) regime (EC Regulation 3036/94). The administration of these arrangements is considered in the "Textile Management Committee". A Department of Trade and Industry official represents the UK. This committee last met in 1996. There are no proposals currently before this committee. Any EC legislation resulting from this committee is subject to parliamentary scrutiny procedures.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The committee was established under the Licensing Directive (directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services) to foster the exchange of information between the member states and between the member states and the Commission on the situation and the development of regulatory activities regarding the authorisation of telecommunications services; and to receive information from the Commission on the outcome of regular consultations with the representatives of telecommunications organisations, users, consumers, manufacturers, service providers and trade unions. The committee has met twice over the past 12 months: in October 2001 and January 2002.
	The UK representation normally consists of one official each from Oftel and the Radiocommunications Agency. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost. Issues currently under consideration are: sharing of communications infrastructure, removing the need for individual licences for the use of radio spectrum, development of third general mobile systems within Europe and the deregulation of satellite dishes, frequencies and systems in order to facilitate multi- media applications.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Committee on the rational and efficient use of energy resources (SAVE) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the Committee for the promotion of renewable energy sources (ALTENER) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(3)  what the mandate of the Committee for the safety of nuclear installations in the countries participating in the TACIS programme (SURE) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(4)  what the mandate of the Committee for clean solid fuels technologies (CARNOT) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(5)  what the mandate of the Committee for the reinforcement of international energy co-operation (SYNERGY) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(6)  what the mandate of the Committee for the future development of energy policy (ETAP) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(7)  what the mandate of the Committee for implementation of the multiannual framework programme for actions in the energy sector (1999 to 2002) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: I am answering these questions together since the individual programmes mentioned are all activities which come under the EU's multiannual framework programme for actions in the energy sector (1998–2002). The mandate for these activities is set out in Council Decision 1999/21/EC of 14 December 1998. One committee meets in six different configurations. The aim of the framework programme is to contribute to the balanced pursuit of the energy policy objectives of security of supply, competitiveness and protection of the environment. A list of related Decisions follows.
	The role of the committee in the respective configurations is as follows: under the ALTENER Decision, the committee promotes renewable energy sources; under the SURE Decision the committee promotes safety of nuclear installations in countries supported by the EU's TACIS (Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States) programme; under the CARNOT Decision the committee promotes the development and effective use of clean solid fuel technologies; under the SYNERGY Decision the committee reinforces international energy co-operation with reference to improving security of energy supply and improving countries' abilities to meet their environmental obligations under the Kyoto Convention; and under the ETAP Decision the Committee undertakes a programme of studies, analyses, forecasts and other related work concerning the future development of energy policy within the Community.
	Generally, the committee meets once per year in respect of each Decision. With the exceptions of its responsibilities under the ETAP Decision (for which there was no meeting in the period in question) and under the ALTENER and SAVE Decisions (on which the committee met twice combining the two subjects), the committee met to discuss each individual Decision once in the past 12 months (April 2001 to end of March 2002). Each meeting lasted one day with the exception of the second meeting on ALTENER/SAVE which lasted two days. Attendance is by an official from this Department with the exception of SAVE which is attended by an official from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The committee discussed issues relating to SURE in the same meeting as it discussed SYNERGY. These factors together make for a total of five meetings over the past year. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	There are two key items currently under the consideration of the Committee of the Energy Framework Programme. The first is the result of the mid-term evaluation of the programme (1998–2002) carried out by independent experts. The second key item under the committee's consideration is the Commission's proposal for a Multiannual Programme for Action in the Field of Energy: "Intelligent Energy for European" Programme (2003–06) (COM (2002) 162 FINAL. This is in large part a continuation of existing activities in the Energy Framework Programme (1998–2002) though it would introduce also a new programme on the energy aspects of transport. In respect of SYNERGY, the committee will be considering applications for project support under the next SYNERGY tender later this year. The next meeting (to be arranged) in respect of ALTENER/SAVE will be considering the evaluation of the final call for proposals which closed in April 2002. The next meeting in respect of CARNOT will be doing likewise—though the Commission may decide to deal with this by written procedure. It is likely that EU support under SURE and ETAP will be discontinued.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
	"simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission". As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM(2001)783 Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Committee on product safety emergencies is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Patricia Hewitt: The committee is mandated under the General Product Safety Directive (EC/92/59, recently revised as 2001–95) to assist the Commission in carrying out its responsibilities under that directive. In particular, the committee is required to give its opinion on drafts of measures to be taken by the Commission. The purpose of the directive is to ensure that consumer products placed on the market in the Community are safe.
	The committee has met three times over the last 12 months. The UK is represented on the committee by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the work of the committee without incurring disproportionate cost.
	The committee is currently considering a range of administrative issues arising from the revision of the directive. From time to time the committee also considers particular product safety issues when requested to do so by a member state.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC. As part of this review, the Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Committee Mandates

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with tariff quotas is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with favourable tariff treatment (nature of end-use of goods) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(3)  what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with the single administrative document is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement;
	(4)  what the mandate of the Customs Code Committee dealing with origin is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: I have been asked to reply.
	The legal basis for all sections of the Customs Code Committee is set out in Article 247 of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation EEC 2913/92). The mandate of the committee is to examine any questions relating to the implementation of this regulation.
	The table shows the frequency of meetings for all sections of the Customs Code Committee.
	
		
			 Name of section(8) Meetings in last year 
		
		
			 End Use 5 
			 Tariff Quotas 3 
			 Origin (8)10 
			 SAD 3 
		
	
	(8) Occasionally meetings may be spread over two days.
	The UK is normally represented by one official from HM Customs and Excise.
	Travel expenses for one official are re-imbursed by the Commission. The usual cost of overnight accommodation and subsistence is per day per official is 217.95 euro (£134.70).
	Items considered by the sections of the committee all relate to the implementation, interpretation and application of Community Customs Code.
	Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU process. EU documents which fall within the Scrutiny Terms of Reference are deposited with Parliament along with an explanatory memorandum for examination by the Scrutiny Committees.
	Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
	As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the committees. The first report was deposited in the libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (COM (2001)783 Final).
	As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agenda and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Arms Exports

Roger Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of the E100 series integrated grenade system manufactured by PW Defence.

Nigel Griffiths: Such information is not normally released because of commercial confidentiality. However, I have asked the company if they will waive this. I will write to my hon. Friend in the light of its response, and will place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

Arms Exports

Roger Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of (a) the fragmentation grenade E105 and (b) the fragmentation grenade E105 incorporated into the trip wire mechanism manufactured by PW Defence.

Nigel Griffiths: Such information is not normally released because of commercial confidentiality. However, I have asked the company if they will waive this. I will write to my hon. Friend in the light of its response, and will place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

Solar Energy

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons solar energy schemes are precluded from the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme's allocation of grants to support the take up of solar power; and what plans there are for their future inclusion.

Brian Wilson: holding answer 20 May 2002
	The £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme is designed specifically to support the installation of solar electricity systems. Our rationale for supporting photovoltaics is that it is a technology at a relatively early stage of development, but with significant potential for further cost reduction and for meeting our electricity needs in the future. There are no plans to include support for other forms of solar energy under this programme.
	Consideration is being given to whether support for solar water heating systems, in addition to other small- scale renewables, could be included in the £10 million Community and Household Scheme, which is currently being designed.

Solar Energy

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives her Department has instigated to encourage the use of solar energy schemes in (a) domestic properties and (b) commercial properties since 1997.

Brian Wilson: holding answer 20 May 2002
	In addition to the £20 million first phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme mentioned in the hon. Member's question PQ No. 57502, the Department is supporting the installation of solar electricity systems in:
	(a) the £5.4 million Domestic Field Trial will support the installation of PV systems in at least 500 homes over the next two years;
	(b) the £4 million Large Scale Field Trial for Public Buildings will support the installation of integrated systems in 18 buildings over the next two years.

Export Credit

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what rules are applied by the ECGD to the offer of export credit support where the British contribution to an export is less than 100 per cent.; what thresholds are required of British content where British content is less than 100 per cent.; whether those thresholds vary for different products and projects; who monitors the share of United Kingdom content; and what measures are used.

Patricia Hewitt: holding answer 21 May 2002
	ECGD's main purpose is to facilitate the export of UK goods and services but few contracts involve 100 per cent. British content. ECGD determines the appropriate level of support for contracts of mixed national content on a case-by-case basis so it is difficult to generalise.
	The factors to be taken into account include the precise breakdown of sourcing, and whether reinsurance arrangements or reciprocal agreements exist with other agencies. ECGD will stipulate the precise amount of foreign content to be supported for a particular transaction in its guarantee documentation. Compliance may be monitored by the bank financing the transaction or by ECGD's own auditors.

Export Credit

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is towards export credit and the apportionment of liabilities, projects and equipment produced on a multi-national basis and which other European Union export credit agencies are involved.

Patricia Hewitt: holding answer 21 May 2002
	ECGD considers each case on its merits in order to determine the level of support that is appropriate.
	ECGD and other European Union export credit agencies can collaborate to support multi-national transactions in a number of ways. Increasingly, use is made of re-insurance between the agencies which often allows a single export credit guarantee or insurance policy to be issued for such a transaction by one agency acting as lead insurer. Liability is then borne by each of the other export credit agencies according to its re-insured share of the transaction.
	Sometimes each agency provides support for its own national content (possibly together with some non- national content) through the issues of separate guarantees or insurance.
	European Union export credit agencies may also provide support for both their own national and each others national content under reciprocal arrangements.
	Combinations of the above methods are also possible.

Correspondence

Claire Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to correspondence arising from Mr. David Harrison of the Government office for the north-west in connection with Mr. Robin Mathais, Freshfield, Merseyside.

Alan Johnson: I replied on 8 May.

Construction Workers

Colin Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the construction industry and UCATT about the abuse of C154 cards; what estimate she has made of the proportion of construction workers incorrectly categorised as self-employed; and what estimate she has made of the amount of tax lost by the incorrect categorising of self-employment in the construction industry.

Brian Wilson: As Treasury have the lead on tax and NIC issues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no direct discussion with the construction industry or UCATT regarding employment status and the CIS4 cards.
	However, DTI Ministers have received written representations regarding self-employment in the construction industry, to which they have responded. DTI also welcomes the emphasis given to employment practices in the wider context of people issues in the Strategic Forum for Construction "Accelerating Change" consultation document.

Plutonium

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent communications her Department has had with NIREX in respect of options for the long-term management of plutonium.

Brian Wilson: In connection with issues contained in DEFRA's consultation "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely", the Department has recently communicated with NIREX on research related to the options for the long-term management of UK civil plutonium.

Euratom

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what United Kingdom policy is in respect of proposals contained in the European Commission proposal document Com (2002) 99 for a Council Decision approving a Commission regulation on the application of Euratom safeguards; what cost compliance assessment has been made of the proposals; and what communications have been entered into with the Commission by United Kingdom Ministers in the drawing up of Commission proposals.

Brian Wilson: An explanatory memorandum (7549–02) was submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Committee on 2 May 2002. Prior to formal issue of COM (2002)99 Final on 22 March 2002 the Commission, in the form of the Euratom Safeguards Office, hosted two informal meetings with member state representatives. Officials from the DTI UK Safeguards Office took part in these meetings.

State Aid

Richard Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reduction there has been in the level of state aid since the European Council's meeting in Lisbon in (a) the European Union and (b) the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

Alan Johnson: Information on changes in the level of state aid in the European Union since the Lisbon Summit (March 2000) is not yet available. The Ninth Survey on State Aid in the European Union (COM 2001/403) was published in July 2001 and the latest EU State Aid Scoreboard (COM 2001/782) was published in December 2001. Both provide information on state aid in the period up to the end of 1999. Copies of these, and previous, reports have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The next State Aid Scoreboard is expected to be published shortly and to include information up to the end of 2000; a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

Business Promotion

Richard Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what visits to promote British business Ministers from her Department have made to the candidate countries of the European Union in the last six months; and what plans Ministers in her Department have to visit those countries in the next six months.

Patricia Hewitt: In the last six months three visits were made by Ministers from my Department to the candidate countries of the European Union. Two more are planned in the coming six months.

Mauban Power Plant

Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which United Kingdom companies the Export Credits Guarantee Department (a) is supporting and (b) has previously supported regarding the (i) Mauban power plant and (ii) transmission networks associated with the Mauban power plant in the Philippines.

Patricia Hewitt: ECGD has not provided any support nor has it received any applications or inquiries from any UK company in respect of the Mauban power plant and/or the associated transmission networks.

Criminal Offences

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many criminal offences have been (a) created and (b) abolished by her Department since 1997.

Patricia Hewitt: This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve her Department.

Patricia Hewitt: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

Land Mines

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations she has made into the manufacture and foreign sale of fragmentation grenade land mines by P.W. Defence Ltd.

Paul Boateng: I have been asked to reply.
	Investigation of allegations relating to the international supply, or intended supply, of anti-personnel mines is a matter for HM Customs and Excise. Customs are fully aware of recent allegations. However, it is not Customs' general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of any investigations of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences. To do so could risk prejudicing any on-going inquiries or future criminal proceedings.
	Investigation of allegations relating to the manufacture, within the United Kingdom, of anti-personnel mines is a matter for the police.

Energy Products Tax Directive

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy towards Commission proposals for the adoption of an energy products tax directive.

Paul Boateng: I have been asked to reply.
	The Government support the principle of an energy products directive, recognising the benefits of co-ordination of environmental taxes at EU level. This is needed to solve cross-border environmental problems, such as global warming, where member states need to act together to prevent a lack of EU action undermining the achievement of environmental objectives through member states' own national tax policies.
	But the Government attached great importance to addressing fuel poverty, and would not support any directive which would require the UK to introduce new taxes on domestic energy.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

Parliamentary Questions

John Bercow: To ask the Advocate-General 
	(1)  what the cost was to her Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated;
	(2)  how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions.

Lynda Clark: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 17 April 2002, Official Report, column 929W.

SCOTLAND

Publicity

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by her Department in each of the last four years, specifying the (a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case.

Helen Liddell: I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 22 April 2002, Official Report, column 68W.
	The information requested on the number of staff involved and the method of evaluation in each case is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Parliamentary Questions

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 
	(1)  what the cost was to her Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated;
	(2)  how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions.

Helen Liddell: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 17 April 2002, Official Report, column 929W.

Sunset Clauses

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Bills introduced by her Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans she has for the future use of such clauses.

Helen Liddell: The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since then, no primary legislation has been introduced by my Department.

Road Fuels

Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 
	(1)  what studies she has carried out into availability of motor transport fuels in rural areas; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what discussions she has held with the Scottish Executive since January on the (a) provision of motor transport fuels and (b) pricing of fuels; and if she will make a statement.

George Foulkes: holding answer 1 May 2002
	I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues.
	I understand that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in co-operation with Scottish Enterprise, is undertaking a study into the availability of LPG in Scotland. We expect this study to report its findings in July this year.
	If the wholesale or retail price for vehicle fuel raises competition concerns it should be brought to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading, who is responsible for investigating allegations of anti- competitive behaviour. The Director General has investigated allegations of differential pricing in Highlands and Islands by oil companies and has found that the competition legislation has not been breached.
	The issue of the level of fuel taxation needs to be reviewed in the context of the overall cost of motoring taxes. Independent research commissioned by my Department has shown that the levels of taxation paid by private motorists in Scotland are lower than in other European countries such as Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and even Portugal.
	The Scottish Executive assists rural petrol stations through the operation of the rural petrol station grant (RPSG) scheme. This scheme aims to help maintain a network of rural petrol stations by assisting rural petrol stations to meet the cost of tank and pump replacement and to deal with ground water problems. This was expanded to include the installation of LPG tanks and dispensers in 2000. To date, 41 rural petrol stations have been supported under the RPSG scheme. Total awards made since the scheme commenced in 1998 are now £856,765.

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Chris Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission; how many have been processed; how many have been referred to the Court of Appeal; and with what result.

Helen Liddell: The functions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission are devolved. It is required to submit a report to the Scottish Ministers at the end of each financial year.

Fraud

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in (a) her Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.

Helen Liddell: No fraud or corruption was recorded in my Department in 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

Disclosure of Interests

Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rules apply to the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to her Department.

Helen Liddell: All advisory and executive non- departmental public bodies are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their non- departmental public bodies.
	The Scotland Office sponsors one NDPB, the Boundary Commission for Scotland. The relevant code of practice, "Boundary Commission for Scotland Code of Practice for Commissioners" is currently being produced and will be available shortly on the Commission's website at www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk.

Oil and Gas Tax

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings she has had since the Budget with representatives of the North sea oil industry in north-east Scotland to discuss the impact of the new oil and gas tax.

Helen Liddell: I have regular contact with businesses involved in the UK continental shelf oil and gas industry and have received views from a number of them on the tax measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement.

Parliamentary Advisers

Alan Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the (a) names and (b) responsibilities are of parliamentary advisers appointed to serve her Department.

Helen Liddell: Ministers in this Department have made no such appointments.

LORD CHANCELLOR

Parliamentary Questions

Tim Yeo: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the written questions asked of him between (a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if he will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer.

Michael Wills: holding answer 2 May 2002
	I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 2 May 2002, Official Report, column 949W. 1,236 questions were tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department, between 1 June 2001 and 30 April 2002, of which 84.71 per cent. were substantively answered. A further 14.72 per cent. has been answered since 1 May 2002. Presently, the following seven questions (excluding this one) have not received a substantive answer:
	2002
	1 February to 28 February—two from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and one from my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
	1 March to 31 March—one from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), one from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and one from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
	1 April to 30 April—one from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
	The remaining outstanding questions will be answered as soon as possible but have missed the deadline due in part to work pressures throughout the Department.

Stolen Equipment

Menzies Campbell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002, Official Report, columns 805–07W, on stolen equipment, what criminal proceedings have been undertaken for cases of theft against her Department, stating in each case (a) whether the proceedings (i) led to a criminal conviction and (ii) were unsuccessful, (b) the cost incurred by her Department in pursuing a conviction and (c) the value of items recovered; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: The information is as follows:
	(a) No criminal proceedings have been brought in relation to the cases of stolen equipment set out in the answer of 22 January 2002, Official Report, columns 805–07W. However, a wide range of security measures and systems of internal control, to deter and detect theft and fraud are in place and continue to be improved, as set out in the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 5 February 2002, Official Report, column 907W. All incidents of suspected or detected theft and fraud are subject to investigation and appropriate action is taken including reporting incidents to the police, or disciplinary procedures taken against those found guilty of wrongdoing.
	(b) The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	(c) Details of those items recovered (not pursuant to criminal proceedings), were included in the answer of 22 January 2002, Official Report, columns 805–07W.

Taxi Fares

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria have to be met in order for a taxi journey by the Lord Chancellor to be paid for from public funds.

Rosie Winterton: In common with Ministers in other Departments, the Lord Chancellor normally uses a car provided through the Government Car Service and it would be exceptional for him to use a taxi for official business. A taxi might be used, and costs paid for from public funds, where a ministerial car was not available and considerations of urgency and security precluded the use of other means of transport.

Taxi Fares

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on taxi fares for the Lord Chancellor in the last year for which figures are available.

Rosie Winterton: In common with Ministers in other Departments, the Lord Chancellor normally uses a car provided through the Government Car Service and he has scarcely ever used a taxi for official business. If a taxi was used, and costs paid for from public funds, it would be because a ministerial car was not available and considerations of urgency and security precluded the use of other means of transport. Separate records are not maintained of any taxi fares which, wholly exceptionally, might have been incurred by the Lord Chancellor.

Taxi Fares

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the expenditure by her Department on taxi fares in the last year has been audited; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: Expenditure on taxi fares is included in the expenditure figures published in the Department's accounts; these accounts are audited by the National Audit Office. In addition, the costs of staff travelling on duty are included in audit programmes conducted by the Department's internal auditors.

Taxi Fares

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by her Department on taxi fares in the last financial year.

Rosie Winterton: £62,952.23.

Fraud

Frank Field: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in (a) her Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) her Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01.

Rosie Winterton: The estimated losses to the Department's Vote, net of the recoveries to date, are as follows:
	
		
			 Financial year £ 
		
		
			 (i) 1999–2000 11,847.49 
			 (ii) 2000–01 2,232.65 
		
	
	The Department has a single Vote.

Correspondence

Julian Brazier: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Canterbury dated 21 December 2001, ref Womans Aid Federation.

Rosie Winterton: A reply was sent on 13 March 2002.

Immigration Advice

Lynne Jones: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 7 May 2002, Official Report, column 72W, on immigration advice, how many of the matter starts have been used in each area; and what the policy of the LSC is as to the balance between solicitors and not-for-profit agencies in the award of contracts.

Rosie Winterton: The figures provided in the answer of 7 May 2002, Official Report, column 72W, were for the number of new matter starts or hours allocated for the financial year 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. Solicitors' firms and not-for-profit organisations report their matter starts on a monthly basis, at the end of each month. It then takes up to one month for all the figures to be processed, so figures for April 2002 are not yet available. The figures for the whole of the financial year will not be known until after April 2003.
	It is the Commission's policy to let contracts to solicitors' firms or not-for-profit organisations, or both, depending on the extent and location of the need for services, and to those best able to provide a comprehensive and accessible service. The Commission has no preference for not-for-profit organisations over solicitors' firms or vice versa.
	The Commission is currently reviewing its bid rules, and expects to release a consultation paper early in June.

Open Government

Helen Jackson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on promotion of open government.

Michael Wills: With the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we have legislated to give to the people of this country, for the first time ever, a general statutory right to know. The timetable we have announced will ensure that full implementation of this new right is completed 11 months before the statutory deadline set out in the Act itself. The publication scheme provisions of the Act will be implemented first, on a rolling programme, starting with central Government in 2002. This roll out will be completed in June 2004 and the individual right of access to information held by all public authorities will be implemented in January 2005.
	This approach will give public authorities the time they need to put into effect the change of culture necessary to ensure the legal rights are delivered in practice. It also aligns with the 2004 target for the completion of the Government's electronic records management. This initiative will enable the fast retrieval and accurate creation and storage of records that will be necessary to meet the demands of the Freedom of Information Act.
	In his annual statutory report to Parliament in November 2001, the Lord Chancellor reported on the progress that had been made towards the implementation of the Act. In particular, he said that each Department had appointed a senior official to 'Champion' freedom of information within their Department and to lead culture change from the top of the organisation. Crucial developments are already taking place in the area of records management and Departments are preparing to meet the targets for the 2004 target for full electronic management of records. The Information Commissioner has already set up five pilot publication schemes with central Government organisation and I look forward to seeing similar pilots in local authorities and the police in the near future.
	The report also announced the formation of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group on Implementation of the Act. The group includes members from representative organisations from across the public sector and independent representatives to advise the Lord Chancellor on what users will need in order to take advantage of their rights under the Freedom of Information Act. It has already met twice and the next meeting will take place in July.
	A seminar for Ministers was held in March of this year, where Ministers were reminded of their key role in delivering compliance with the Act and a new culture of openness. In particular, we noted that there should be a Minister in each Department with responsibility for implementing freedom of information in that Department, its agencies and sponsored non-departmental public bodies; and those Ministers should take an active interest in the delivery of the Act within these Departments.
	I have recently completed a series of road shows around the country to raise awareness of the Act at a senior level in public authorities. These events were attended by around 1,000 officials from across the public sector and officials in my Department intend to run a series of workshops in the autumn to follow-up these road shows.
	This year's report, to be published in November, will contain further details of developments in all these areas. In the same month, publication schemes will come into force for central Government and other bodies already applying the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. These schemes will provide greater access to information for all members of the public.
	Officials from the Freedom of Information and Data Protection Division in my Department have undertaken awareness-raising seminars and will continue to do so. These have been held in a wide range of Departments including: the Cabinet Office; the Home Office; the Department of Health; the Northern Ireland civil service as well as in my Department. Officials also speak at the civil service college course on freedom of information and have spoken on courses and conferences arranged by other organisations. In these sessions, officials are reminded of the requirement to comply with the existing Code of Practice on Access to Government Information when answering requests for information until the Freedom of Information Act comes fully into effect in January 2005.
	More information about the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is available on the Department's website at www.lcd.gov.uk.

Court Buildings

Jimmy Wray: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many court houses have closed since 1997; and how many have had improvements made to them.

Michael Wills: There have been 77 magistrates' court houses closed since 1997 in England and Wales, as set out in the table. Of the 404 magistrates' courts in England and Wales currently in operation, almost all have had improvements made to them in one way or another, for example, improvements to environmental systems or enhancements to enable compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act or Health and Safety legislation, including security provisions.
	The Department is currently funding an ongoing programme of building works on magistrates' courts throughout England and Wales. It received a £100 million capital grant allocation during the current Spending Review 2000 period for maintenance and other building enhancements. This is funding priority maintenance and improvement works such as facilities for victims and vulnerable witnesses, as well as Disability Discrimination Act and Security facilities. The grant provides 80 per cent. of the funding with a further 20 per cent. being provided by the local authority. There is also a public private partnership programme for the provision of new courts to meet the needs of a 21st century court system. £210 million national credit approval (NCA) has been allocated over the CSR 2000 period.
	There have been 15 county court closures since 1997 in England and Wales, as set out in the table. There are two county court closure proposals (Gravesend and Gateshead) under consideration, both of which have gone out to public consultation.
	There have been no Crown court closures in England and Wales since 1997. There is, however, currently public consultation on the proposal to close the Crown court at Knutsford. Consultation commenced on 10 April and will run until the end of May.
	There are 78 Crown court centres and 218 county courts (permanent) in England and Wales; many have had various renovation works undertaken. The nature of works covered varies but they include items such as health and safety works, security work, Disability Discrimination Act compliance and environmental improvements. In most instances these works have been undertaken within the scope of major maintenance schemes.
	
		
			 MCC Magistrates' courthouse Closure date 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire Ampthill 1 January 2000 
			 Bedfordshire Biggleswade 1 January 2000 
			 Bedfordshire Dunstable 1 January 2000 
			 Bedfordshire Leighton Buzzard 1 January 2000 
			 Cambridgeshire March 31 December 1998 
			 Cheshire Warrington Patten Hall 1 April 2001 
			 Cheshire Macclesfield Park Green 1 April 2001 
			 Cumbria Keswick 30 April 2000 
			 Cumbria Appleby 31 May 2000 
			 Cumbria Windermere 31 May 2000 
			 Cumbria Wigton 31 May 2000 
			 Derbyshire Alfreton 1 January 2001 
			 Derbyshire Ashbourne 1 January 2001 
			 Derbyshire Bakewell 1 January 2001 
			 Derbyshire Matlock 1 January 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Bideford 30 April 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Exmouth 30 April 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Kingsbridge 30 April 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall South Molton 30 April 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Teignmouth 30 April 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Tavistock 30 April 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Axminster 4 May 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Tiverton 4 May 2001 
			 Devon and Cornwall Newquay 30 June 2001 
			 Dorset Christchurch 31 March 1999 
			 Dorset Gillingham 30 September 2001 
			 Durham Barnard Castle 31 December 1998 
			 Essex Saffron Walden 31 December 1998 
			 Gloucestershire Stow on the Wold 30 June 1999 
			 Greater London Marlborough Street 31 March 98 
			 Greater London Clerkenwell 31 December 1998 
			 Greater Manchester Leigh 31 March 2001 
			 Greater Manchester Middleton 31 March 2001 
			 Hampshire and Isle of Wight Southampton (Commercial Road) 31 August 2001 
			 Hertfordshire Bishop's Stortford 31 March 1998 
			 Hertfordshire Hatfield 31 March 1998 
			 Hertfordshire Hitchin 31 March 1998 
			 Humberside Bridlington 9 November 2001 
			 Humberside Brough 9 November 2001 
			 Humberside Driffield 9 November 2001 
			 Humberside Hull (Guildhall) 9 November 2001 
			 Humberside Hull (Lowgate) 9 November 2001 
			 Humberside Pocklington 9 November 2001 
			 Humberside Withernsea 9 November 2001 
			 Kent Sheerness 31 December 1998 
			 Kent West Malling 31 December 1998 
			 Kent Gravesend 9 June 2000 
			 Lancashire Lytham 31 December 1998 
			 Leicestershire Lutterworth 31 July 1998 
			 Lincolnshire Market Rasen 31 March 1998 
			 Norfolk Diss 31 December 1998 
			 North Wales Corwen 31 December 1998 
			 North Wales Abergele 31 December 2000 
			 North Yorkshire Malton 6 February 1998 
			 North Yorkshire Ripon 1 August 1998 
			 Staffordshire Lichfield 31 March 2000 
			 Staffordshire Leek 31 March 2001 
			 Staffordshire Womborne 1 September 2001 
			 Suffolk Felixstowe 31 December 1998 
			 Suffolk Haverhill 31 December 1998 
			 Suffolk Saxmundham 31 December 1998 
			 Suffolk Stowmarket 31 December 1998 
			 Suffolk Newmarket 31 December 1998 
			 Surrey Chertsey 31 March 1998 
			 Surrey Farnham 31 March 1998 
			 Surrey Oxted 31 March 1998 
			 Sussex Arundel 1 December 2001 
			 Thames Valley Abingdon 31 March 1999 
			 Thames Valley Henley on Thames 31 March 1999 
			 Thames Valley Windsor 31 March 1999 
			 West Mercia Worcester 31 March 2001 
			 West Mercia Bridgenorth 31 January 2002 
			 West Mercia Leominster 31 January 2002 
			 West Yorkshire Morley 31 March 1999 
			 West Yorkshire Pudsey 31 March 1999 
			 West Yorkshire Keighley 1 April 2000 
			 Wiltshire Wootton Bassett 2 October 2000 
		
	
	
		
			 County court  Closure date 
		
		
			 Rochdale 7 September 1998 
			 Holywell 7 September 1998 
			 Camborne and Redruth 24 December 1998 
			 Hemel Hempstead 24 December 1998 
			 West Bromwich 24 December 1998 
			 Loughborough 31 December 1998 
			 Corby 1 March 1999 
			 Bridgwater 20 December 1999 
			 Great Yarmouth 31 January 2000 
			 Grays Thurrock 31 January 2000 
			 Lichfield 3 July 2000 
			 Caerphilly 30 November 2000 
			 Workington 2 January 2001 
			 Chepstow 1 April 2002 
			 Monmouth 1 April 2002

Crown Courts

George Osborne: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost in 2000–01 was of (a) the maintenance of each of the Crown courts in England and (b) administering each of the Crown courts in England; and what the average cost per case heard was of each of the Crown courts in 2000–01.

Michael Wills: pursuant to his reply, 29 April 2002
	The table submitted with the answer was included in error. I apologise for this error. The attached table correctly sets out the information requested.
	
		
			  Property number  Property name Total maintenance costs (£) NIA (sq.m.) Cost per sq.m. (£) 
		
		
			 233 Nottingham Combined Court 136,814.87 3,225.37 42.42 
			 100 Chichester Combined Court 64,511.85 1,577.75 40.89 
			 783 Newport (Isle of Wight) Combined Court 39,189.97 1,012.76 38.70 
			 465 Portsmouth Combined Court 214,394.88 7,070.41 30.32 
			 633 Taunton Combined Court 66,342.29 2,374.06 27.94 
			 555 Plymouth Combined Court 79,320.47 2,902.23 27.33 
			 611 Doncaster Crown Court 68,025.49 2,534.61 26.84 
			 700 Warrington Combined Court 70,505.39 2,698.16 26.13 
			 715 Hove Trial Centre 64,396.73 2,490.71 25.85 
			 636 Manchester Crown Court 185,145.33 7,247.61 25.55 
			 653 Bristol Crown Court 201,599.60 8,371.4 24.08 
			 719 Preston Combined Court 216,269.95 9,193.9 23.52 
			 243 Hereford Crown Court 11,680.74 513.05 22.77 
			 232 Coventry Combined Court 91,018.66 4,152.07 21.92 
			 556 Southampton Combined Court 108,348.83 5,080.92 21.32 
			 551 Exeter Combined Court 55,543.17 2,630.51 21.11 
			 710 Bournemouth Combined Court 119,860.20 5,691.58 21.06 
			 666 Wood Green Crown Court 115,554.00 5,568.3 20.75 
			 740 Woolwich Crown Court 160,975.00 7,950.79 20.25 
			 690 Stafford Combined Court 92,346.95 4,568.98 20.21 
			 129 Cambridge Crown Court 10,303.75 514.86 20.01 
			 157 Warwick Combined Court Office 12,147.47 611.87 19.85 
			 38 Snaresbrook Crown Court 253,546.00 13,004.51 19.50 
			 43 Lewes Combined Court 87,337.98 4,523.97 19.31 
			 560 Gloucester Crown Court 28,606.70 1,486.34 19.25 
			 182 Lincoln Crown Court (Castle) 25,413.28 1,321.54 19.23 
			 33 Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court 93,660.00 4,906.28 19.09 
			 231 Birmingham Crown Court 122,406.88 6,488.59 18.86 
			 709 Lincoln Combined Court 31,883.77 1,699.18 18.76 
			 186 Oxford Combined Court Centre 93,152.63 4,966.46 18.76 
			 168 Great Grimsby Combined Court 58,461.99 3,162.94 18.48 
			 96 Kings Lynn Crown Court 9,704.49 527.8 18.39 
			 162 Shrewsbury Crown Court 26,783.23 1,466.97 18.26 
			 230 Worcester Crown Court 81,511.35 4,468.71 18.24 
			 237 Derby Combined Court 80,341.16 4,475.67 17.95 
			 229 Peterborough Combined Court 54,430.53 3,051.16 17.84 
			 42 Maidstone Combined Court 143,435.91 8,119.31 17.67 
			 34 Ipswich Crown Court 25,194.86 1,433.6 17.57 
			 597 Weymouth and Dorchester Combined Court 8,771.74 500.52 17.53 
			 16 Chelmsford Crown Court 106,293.07 6,125.62 17.35 
			 21 Norwich Combined Court 88,302.86 5,228.97 16.89 
			 688 Luton Crown Court 77,083.31 4,633.88 16.63 
			 737 Blackfriars Crown Court 127,207.00 7,805.25 16.30 
			 768 Kingston upon Thames Crown Court 153,011.00 9,395.03 16.29 
			 187 Leicester Crown Court 94,066.71 5,792.98 16.24 
			 676 Northampton Combined Court 84,883.44 5,269.62 16.11 
			 373 York Crown Court 35,787.79 2,224 16.09 
			 461 Chester Crown Court 61,469.38 3,833.35 16.04 
			 619 Manchester Crown and County Courts 259,673.85 16,260.13 15.97 
			 460 Knutsford Crown Court 17,444.33 1,100.48 15.85 
			 31 Reading Crown Court 90,752.91 5,734.06 15.83 
			 687 Harrow Crown Court 100,506.00 6,485.3 15.50 
			 566 Truro Combined Court 55,645.92 3,592.2 15.49 
			 659 Kingston upon Hull Combined Court 87,631.98 5,737.81 15.27 
			 691 Stoke on Trent Combined Court 83,409.32 5,461.51 15.27 
			 567 Swindon Combined Court 39,873.18 2,632.84 15.14 
			 640 Newcastle upon Tyne Combined Court 174,699.74 11,657.19 14.99 
			 806 Gloucester Combined Court 24,645.00 1,742.32 14.14 
			 673 Basildon Combined Court 76,931.58 5,441.07 14.14 
			 124 Guildford Crown Court 45,461.00 3,275.07 13.88 
			 649 Wolverhampton Combined Court 86,925.15 6,396 13.59 
			 293 Bolton Combined Court 55,192.01 4,190 13.17 
			 136 Aylesbury Crown Court 10,144.61 775.42 13.08 
			 716 Bradford Combined Court 129,061.56 9,983.17 12.93 
			 329 Leeds Combined Court 172,813.17 13,371.19 12.92 
			 294 Burnley Combined Court 31,732.93 2,457.06 12.92 
			 349 Newcastle upon Tyne Combined Court Offices 21,404.75 1,673.18 12.79 
			 332 Durham Crown Court 21,104.79 1,653.93 12.76 
			 22 Croydon Combined Court 99,754.95 7,985.32 12.49 
			 717 Carlisle Combined Court 49,576.03 3,985.8 12.44 
			 4 Southwark Crown Court 137,407.00 11,103.31 12.38 
			 299 Liverpool Combined Court 280,152.05 23,275.37 12.04 
			 711 Sheffield Combined Court 125,096.88 10,884.96 11.49 
			 105 Southend Crown Court 8,256.96 749.72 11.01 
			 5 Isleworth Crown Court 50,101.00 5,023.36 9.97 
			 553 Salisbury Combined Court 32,707.77 3,281.13 9.97 
			 671 Canterbury Combined Court 59,737.73 6,157.68 9.70 
			 634 Preston Crown Court 27,627.32 2,924.53 9.45 
			 658 Teesside Combined Court 106,031.48 12,500.81 8.48 
			 728 St. Albans Crown Court 33,402.41 4,305.56 7.76 
			 562 Winchester Combined Court 38,488.31 7,028.89 5.48 
			 503 Weymouth and Dorchester Combined Court Offices 4,191.77 936.41 4.48 
			 185 Warwick Combined Court 5,631.51 1,315.08 4.28 
			 269 Lancaster Crown Court 5,744.85 1,568.41 3.66 
			 130 Bury St. Edmunds Crown Court 2,284.61 715.33 3.19 
			 48 Central Criminal Court 39,320.90 17,174.41 2.29 
			  Total 6,927,609.96 434,430.16 15.95

Royal Family

Norman Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is on the release of papers from the Public Record Office relating to the royal family; how these rules differ according to whether the relevant member of the royal family is (a) alive and (b) dead; and what considerations as to the potential embarrassment caused by a release of papers apply in respect of (i) living and (ii) dead members of the royal family.

Rosie Winterton: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 593W. It is for the originating Government Department to determine the release of papers relating to the royal family, wherever they are held. The policy under which this is conducted derives from the Open Government Code, which applies in the same way to public records relating to the royal family as it does to other public records. One of the Open Government criteria under which records may remain closed beyond 30 years covers documents whose release would cause 'substantial distress' either to an individual or to descendants of the individual. The inclusion of "descendants" means that the criterion may apply whether the relevant individual is alive or dead. Under the Open Government Code, 'potential embarrassment' is not a factor in determining closure or release.

Euro Conversion Costs

Peter Kilfoyle: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the (a) cost (b) new equipment needed and (c) modifications needed to existing IT software to adapt to entry to the Euro for (a) the Court Service, (b) magistrates courts, (c) freedom of information, (d) data protection and identity services, (e) the Land Registry, (f) CAFCASS, (g) the Public Guardianship Office, (h) the Public Record Office, (i) the Northern Ireland Court Service, (j) the Statutory Compilations Office and (k) community legal services.

Rosie Winterton: The Lord Chancellor's Department its NDPBs and sister Departments have carried out initial assessments of the business areas that would be affected on entry to the Euro, but are not in a position to provide the level of information requested, at this stage. Where appropriate, work is planned to assess the estimated time, cost and impact of conversion to Euro compliance for existing financial systems. However, where financial systems are being or will be upgraded or renewed in the near future, an assessment of Euro compliance is being made as part of the process.

Marriage and Relationship Support

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what support was given to this year's National Marriage Week by her Department.

Rosie Winterton: I apologise for the delay in replying, which was due to an administrative oversight. National Marriage Week 2002 was supported through the grant of £31,500 paid to Oasis Media (the PR company employed by Futureway Trust) to launch National Marriage Week. Oasis Media and Futureway have also received advisory support and guidance from officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Withheld Records

Norman Baker: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what percentage of records eligible for release in 2001 under the 30-year rule were withheld; and for what reasons these were withheld, broken down by category of exemption.

Rosie Winterton: The number of records accessioned by the PRO in 2001 but subject to extended closure is estimated at 2,300, about four per cent. of the total.
	Of those records subject to extended closure, the percentages falling within the following broad categories of extended closure is as follows:
	National security and defence—7 per cent.
	Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons—13 per cent.
	International relations—15 per cent.
	Information given in confidence—8 per cent.
	Substantial distress (including endangerment to individuals)— 57 per cent.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Parliamentary Questions

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the President of the Council what formula is used to determine the average cost of answering a parliamentary question.

Paul Boateng: I have been asked to reply.
	A costing survey conducted in 1991, involving six Government Departments answering a total of approximately 1,600 parliamentary questions, established the average full costs of answering both written and oral parliamentary questions, then £87 and £202 respectively.
	Since 1991 the costs have been updated annually by indexation using two separate indices, the retail prices index and the civil service earnings index. The indices are applied 25 per cent. and 75 per cent. respectively to prior year average costs to determine the revised average costs for answering parliamentary questions.
	The current average costs of answering parliamentary questions are £129 for a written parliamentary question and £299 for an oral parliamentary question, as announced on 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 582W.

HEALTH

Cancer Plan

Andrew Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the opportunity costs of the Cancer Plan.

Yvette Cooper: Cancer is a central priority for the national health service and one in three people in England will develop cancer at some stage in their lives. The NHS Cancer Plan was published in September 2000 and is the first comprehensive national cancer programme.
	Improvements to cancer services in line with the implementation of the Cancer Plan will benefit diagnostic, treatment and care services across the NHS and as such will benefit not only cancer patients but also a high proportion of other NHS patients as well.

Cancer Plan

Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the allocation in the NHS Cancer Plan for palliative care has been spent on hospices for (a) children and (b) adults in 2001–02; how much expenditure is planned for 2002–03, and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: In the NHS Cancer Plan, we pledged that the national health service contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care for adults (including hospices) would increase. By 2004 the NHS will invest an additional £50 million available for specialist palliative care. This investment is intended to help tackle inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to increase their contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed level of services. At a local level this investment must be based on the agreed strategic plans for palliative care provision within each cancer network's service delivery plan.
	Funding to support this investment is included within the sums made available for cancer in NHS allocations each year.
	Outturn information is not yet available for 2001–02. Palliative care will be included as actual expenditure on palliative care within plans for use of the £76 million of earmarked funding for cancer in 2002–03.
	In addition to the extra investment identified in the Cancer Plan, the New Opportunities Fund has recently announced a further £70 million to support palliative care projects, £22 million for adults and £48 million for children.

General Practitioners

Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP practices do not have a connection with NHSnet.

Yvette Cooper: As at 22 April 2002 142 practices did not have an NHSnet connection. 75 of these are awaiting installation, the remainder (by agreement with the relevant health authorities) are where it would not be practical or cost-effective to install an NHSnet connection for a short period, for example, because the general practitioner is shortly to retire or working from temporary premises. 8,586 practices (95 per cent.) have an NHSnet line installed.

Vaccination Targets

Graham Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentive payments are available to general practitioners meeting vaccination targets.

Yvette Cooper: Under general medical services, the childhood immunisation programme target payment is £2,730 per annum if a general practitioner immunises 90 per cent. of children aged two on his partnership list or £910 per annum if 70 per cent. of children are immunised. The pre-school booster target payments are £810 per annum if 90 per cent. of children aged five on a GP's partnership list are immunised or £270 per annum for 70 per cent. Personal medical services incentive payments for vaccinations and immunisations are negotiated as part of the personal medical service agreement but are broadly similar to those payable to GPs working under general medical service arrangements.

Renal Transplant Services

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the costs of siting renal transplant services at (a) St. George's and (b) St. Helier hospitals.

John Hutton: Renal transplantation services are currently provided from two sites in south-west London: Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust and St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust. It is proposed that renal services are maintained at both hospital sites and that the transplantation operation and immediate post-operative recovery period is centralised on one site at St. George's hospital. This proposal is currently the subject of a three-month public consultation which concludes on 25 June 2002.
	Resource effectiveness and affordability was one of the 10 criteria as part of the relative benefits of centralising transplantation services at Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust, St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust or Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust. The estimated short-term costs for centralising transplantation at either the St. George's or St. Helier sites are outlined in the consultation document as approximately £320,000. The funding for a long-term purpose-built facility on either site would be subject to the development of an outline business case for consideration by the south-west London health authority. Any further development of a business case for an integrated facility at either site will be subject to the outcome of the public consultation on the future of renal transplantation services.

Diabetes

Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what community provision is made for diabetes sufferers in Bradford.

Jacqui Smith: Bradford primary care trusts invest over £600,000 annually in the provision of community diabetes services. Provision includes:
	A community based diabetes services for patients with diabetes needing insulin. The service is managed by diabetes specialist nurses, practice nurses, dieticians, podiatrists and general practitioners
	A community based retinal screening service
	Comprehensive audit and education for GPs specialising in diabetes
	Primary care services for non-insulin dependent patients
	Diabetic register
	Nurse consultant in diabetes care
	Diabetes co-ordinator
	Diabetes lead teams in each primary care trust.

Staff Numbers

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed in the National Care Standards Commission at 1 April; and what proportion of those staff have clinical contact with NHS patients.

Jacqui Smith: The National Care Standards Commission employed 1,866 staff at 1 April 2002.
	The commission employs a range of staff including administrators and inspectors. While the commission's inspectors have qualifications relevant to the work they do in regulating services and establishments, including medical qualifications where appropriate, none of the commission's staff have clinical contact with national health service patients.

Juvenile Sex Abusers

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protocols are in place for child and adolescent mental health services in dealing with children who sexually abuse.

Jacqui Smith: No national protocols have been set for child and adolescent mental health services. However, paragraphs 6.31 to 6.37 of "Working Together to Safeguard Children" gives guidance for agencies working with children and young people who abuse others. This includes the principle that there should be a co-ordinated approach on the part of youth justice, child welfare, education (including educational psychology) and health (including child and adolescent mental health) agencies.
	A number of adolescent sexual offenders will have co-existing serious mental health disorders or mental illness. In these circumstances, it is expected that child and adolescent mental health services would assess both the mental health needs of the young person and also the level of risk they pose and provide appropriate treatment for that disorder or illness.

Juvenile Sex Abusers

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to conduct further research into children and young people who sexually abuse.

Jacqui Smith: There are no current plans to conduct new research on child sexual abuse. It is often an issue that is picked up and explored as part of other studies about interventions with children in need. Relevant departmental funded studies on children or young people who sexually abuse are in the completed study, "Sexually Abused and Abusing Children in Substitute Care" by Elaine Farmer and the forthcoming study, "A Protective Study on the Onset of Sexually Abusive Behaviour in Boys who were Sexually Abused in Childhood" by Professor Skuse at the Institute of Child Health.

Juvenile Sex Abusers

Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by his Department in implementing a multi-agency model to address (a) the risks posed by and (b) the needs of children and young people who abuse.

Jacqui Smith: "Working Together to Safeguard Children", a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children published in December 1999, sets out how agencies should work together to assess the risks posed by and the needs of children and young people who abuse. It is the responsibility of area child protection committees and their relevant constituent agencies to determine ways of implementing this guidance at local level.

Juvenile Sex Abusers

Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was available for programmes to address the needs of children and young people who sexually abuse in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001.

Jacqui Smith: The Department has funded two voluntary organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act (1968) to carry out work in relation to stopping child sexual abuse by using public health education approaches to increase public awareness of sexual abuse in a way that empowers people to act responsibly and without panic in the interests of effective child protection. The 'Stop It Now!' project is targeting specific groups of adults including adult abusers and the parents of young abusers. The Lucy Faithfull foundation and the national organisation for the treatment of abusers have been granted £55,000 and £37,000 a year for each year from 2001–02 to 2003–04, with additional funding from the Home Office of £50,000 a year for the same three-year period for the Lucy Faithfull foundation.

Public Inquiries (Child Abuse and Neglect)

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public inquiries have been held into child (a) abuse and (b) neglect cases since 1990.

Jacqui Smith: There has been no statutory public inquiries into child abuse or neglect cases since 1990, apart from the Victoria Climbie inquiry that is currently carrying out its work. The Government guidance, "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued by the Home Office, Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health in December 1999, states that when a child dies and abuse or neglect are known or suspected to be a factor in the death, the area child protection committee (ACPC) should always conduct a review into the involvement with the child and family of agencies and professionals. In all cases, the ACPC overview report should contain an executive summary that will be made public.

Nurses

Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent nurses are responsible for assessing patients for free nursing care.

Jacqui Smith: Across the country as a whole, in the period from October 2001 to March 2002, a total of approximately 800 nurses received training in carrying out the registered nursing care contribution in order to determine the needs of approximately 42,000 people. The number of whole-time equivalent nurses is not known.

Nurses

Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many people have been waiting (a) less than one month, (b) over one month and less than two months, (c) over two months and less than three months, (d) over three months and less than four months and (e) over four months for an assessment for free nursing care;
	(2)  how many people are awaiting an assessment for free nursing care; and what proportion that represents of people who have either been assessed for or are awaiting an assessment for free nursing care.

Jacqui Smith: I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 6 March 2002, Official Report, column 462W.

Hospital Stays

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken since 1997 to ensure that people (a) are not discharged from hospital too early and (b) do not stay in hospital longer than necessary.

Jacqui Smith: The number of people aged over 75 with a delayed discharge has fallen from 15.7 per cent. to 10.5 per cent. since 1997. In order that this trend should continue, we have already responded to the issue of delayed discharge with a special grant to councils of £300 million over two years, and the establishment of the 'change agents team' dedicated to supporting social services and the national health service to solve these problems locally. We are in the process of updating the hospital discharge workbook, which aims to help health, social services and other agencies improve discharge procedures.
	Over the longer term, the Government intend to bring forward legislation to make councils responsible for meeting the costs to the NHS of delayed discharges. The new approach will be about putting in place the right incentives to ensure that people are able to leave hospital as soon as treatment is completed and it is safe for them to do so.

Mental Health

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new mental health units have been built since June 2000.

Jacqui Smith: 22 major schemes, each exceeding £2 million have been completed throughout the country and funded from public capital, with a total value exceeding £50 million. Two large private finance initiative schemes have been developed at a value of £28 million.

Mental Health

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to adapt older mental health units to match the criteria laid down for the building of new mental health units.

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made available funding of £30 million over two years from 2001–02 specifically for improving the physical environment in in-patient psychiatric wards.

Mental Health

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will carry out an audit of the opinions of mental health service users in hospitals regarding mixed and single-sex wards.

Jacqui Smith: The Department does not intend to carry out a national audit of the opinions of mental health service users regarding mixed and single sex hospital accommodation. The Department has set clear objectives for the elimination of mixed sex accommodation in mental health settings. National health service trust boards are responsible for putting in place policies and procedures to address patient safety, privacy and dignity. The Department's guidance to trusts sets out that NHS trust chief executives should ensure that local patient surveys are considered as a means of assessing patients' and relatives' views about services and to ascertain their concerns.

Mental Health

Oliver Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what benefits exercise referral schemes offer in the field of mental health treatment.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 21 May 2002
	Regular physical activity reduces the risk of depression and has positive benefits for mental health including reduced anxiety, enhanced mood and self-esteem. Existing referral schemes involve primary care professionals referring patients to facilities such as leisure centres or gyms for supervised exercise programmes. Last year, the Department published a national quality assurance framework to improve the quality of existing referral schemes and help the development of new ones.

Children in Care

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children who have been in care homes in the last five years have been convicted of an offence.

Jacqui Smith: Information on the number of children who have been in care homes who have been convicted of an offence is not collected centrally.
	Of all children looked after in England for at least one year who were aged 10 years or older at 30 September 2000, 2,800 or 11 per cent. were cautioned or convicted during the year.

Hepatitis C

Bill Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Strategy report on hepatitis C will be published.

Yvette Cooper: We set up a steering group last year to assist in developing a strategic approach to hepatitis C by bringing together issues relating to prevention, control and treatment. We plan to consult on a strategy for hepatitis C in England during the summer, which will take account of advice from the steering group.

Nurse Prescribing Scheme

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he took of the need to tackle antibiotic resistance before deciding to extend the nurse prescribing scheme to include nine oral antibiotics.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 11 May 2002
	We took the decision after detailed discussion between senior officials and representatives of the Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance.

Disability Equipment Services

Gareth Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission's "Fully Equipped" report on the provision of disability equipment services for older and disabled people.

Jacqui Smith: Since publication of the Audit Commission's report "Fully Equipped" in March 2000, the Department has extended the agenda set by the report, and gone beyond the four recommendations for the Department. In particular, it has done this by developing, with the active involvement of the Audit Commission, guidance on the modernisation of community equipment services and by funding the integration of local authority and health equipment services. The Department has also allocated £30 million to modernise hearing aids services, including the provision of digital hearing aids, and £4 million for the provision of life-like covering for artificial limbs. The Modernisation Agency will be identifying and spreading good practice within wheelchair services. The Department has continued to encourage health authorities, trusts and social services, and now, primary care trusts, to implement the further 13 recommendations that fell into their remit.

Intermediate Care

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 486W, on intermediate care, how many people in each quarter of 2001 who were (a) referred to/receiving intermediate care in a residential setting to prevent hospital admission and (b) referred to non-residential intermediate care teams to prevent hospital admission were subsequently admitted to hospital within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) three months and (iv) four months.

Jacqui Smith: Information on the number of people admitted to hospital following an episode of intermediate care is not available.

Intermediate Care

Colin Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 April 2002, Official Report, column 926W, on community hospitals, how many intermediate care beds there were in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and what proportion were located in rural areas, broken down by region.

Jacqui Smith: The results of a survey of NHS intermediate care in England carried out last summer, giving data by region and by health authority for the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, are in the Library. Information on the proportion of intermediate care beds in rural areas is not available.

Free Nursing Care

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) representations and (b) letters he has received from (i) hon. Members and (ii) members of the public regarding the failure of care homes to pass on the NHS free nursing care contribution to residents.

Jacqui Smith: I have received two representations on this subject, one from an hon. Member and one from an organisation representing the interests of older people.
	I have received just over 200 letters from Members of Parliament and 150 letters direct from members of the public about national health service funded nursing care. A large proportion of these, though not all, were about the increases in care home fees following the introduction of NHS funded nursing care.

Care Homes

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the care home sector of mergers and acquisitions of care homes in the last five years.

Jacqui Smith: The Government have made no such assessment.

Parliamentary Questions

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the information his Department collects centrally; and what steps the Department takes to obtain the desired information to answer hon. Members' written parliamentary questions.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 11 May 2002
	The Department collects a wide range of information on health services and personal social services in England to enable it to meet its objectives and responsibilities. A consolidated list is being established of information collected centrally by the Department and can be found on the Department's Information Asset Register on the world-wide web (website address: http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/doh/iar.nsf/ frames2?open). Details of information returns which it is planned routinely to collect from the national health service for 2002–03 is also available on the Department's website (www.doh.gov.uk/ipu/stbop/flowsa.htm).
	The Department will always take reasonable steps to obtain the information needed to answer Members' written parliamentary questions provided that obtaining the information requested would not incur disproportionate cost.

MMR

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP practices have failed to meet targets for MMR vaccination rates and missed out on target payments.

Yvette Cooper: holding answer 29 April 2002
	680 or 8 per cent. of general medical service general practitioner practices are not meeting the childhood immunisation targets. MMR is one of the immunisations in the childhood immunisation programme, the others are diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, pertussis and haemophilus influenza type B. No data are available for personal medical services (PMS) practices, as PMS works on the basis of local accountability these data are not held centrally.

Overseas Recruitment

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for the director of international recruitment for health services for the number of foreign recruited nurses working for the NHS.

John Hutton: holding answer 21 May 2002
	A combination of international recruitment, return to practice, improved retention and increased output from training has meant that the NHS Plan increase of 20,000 more nurses by 2004 has been achieved well in advance of the 2004 target.
	A similar approach will be used to ensure achievement of the new targets for increases in the nursing work force.

Foot Infections

Oliver Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of episodes of care in respect of tissue breakdown infection and/or ulceration of the foot by region in each year since 1997.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 21 May 2002
	The information requested is shown in the tables.
	
		Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) by main diagnosis in national health service hospitals, England 1996–97 to 1998–99
		
			  1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 
		
		
			 Northern and Yorkshire regional
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 2,540 1,067 1,083 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 1 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 17 8 22 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 236 205 196 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 83 50 81 
			 
			 Trent regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,436 1,660 1,887 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 5 10 9 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 316 279 236 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 121 110 69 
			 
			 Anglia and Oxford regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 2,424 1,736 1,671 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 5 7 10 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 245 229 216 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 100 102 80 
			 
			 North Thames regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,620 1,506 1,754 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 7 12 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 3 9 5 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 254 264 230 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 107 87 117 
			 
			 South Thames regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,790 1,697 1,719 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 1 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 3 12 10 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 255 260 303 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 132 88 100 
			   
			 South and West regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 2,587 2,624 2,941 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 16 35 33 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 452 450 464 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 130 149 157 
			 
			 West Midlands regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,579 1,466 1,578 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 1 2 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 2 9 2 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 213 204 234 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 76 91 95 
			 North West regional office
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,421 1,558 1,752 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 8 10 7 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 188 223 264 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 141 145 156 
			 
			 Not known
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 0 22 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 0 0 0 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 0 3 0 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 0 0 0 
		
	
	
		Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) by main diagnosis in national health service hospitals, England 1999–2000 to 2000–01
		
			  1999–2000  2000–01 
		
		
			 Northern and Yorkshire regional   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,251 1,292 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 20 32 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 183 139 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 61 54 
			
			 Trent regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,827 1,789 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 2 9 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 208 214 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 85 115 
			
			 West Midlands regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,625 1,717 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 8 5 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 229 177 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 65 103 
			
			 North West regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,737 1,918 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 8 5 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 169 195 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 163 113 
			
			 Eastern regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,597 1,572 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 8 5 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 211 212 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 106 85 
			
			 London regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 1,745 1,875 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 1 2 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 15 9 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 262 331 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 188 96 
			   
			 South East regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 2,418 2,445 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 4 8 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 345 272 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 101 137 
			
			 South West regional office   
			 L97 Ulcer of lower limb, not elsewhere classified 2,430 2,389 
			 A30.1 Tuberculoid leprosy 0 0 
			 A52.1 Symptomatic neursyphilis 7 17 
			 183.0 Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer 358 354 
			 183.2 Varicose veins of lower extremities 168 122

Expenditure

Oliver Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, 
	(1)  pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002, ref. 56283, on expenditure, what assessment he has made of the money necessary to meet (a) increases in pay, (b) increases in prices and (c) the other pressures faced by health authorities; and if he will make a statement on how the increased health authority allocations will meet each increase and pressure;
	(2)  if he will make a statement on how the increased allocations to health authorities for 2002–03 will be spent.

John Hutton: holding answer 21 May 2002
	Health authority allocations for 2002–03 increased by £3,704 million, or 9.9 per cent. This included sufficient funding to meet increases in pay, prices and other pressures faced by all health authorities. It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling inequalities and modernising services.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is for the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit.

David Blunkett: The Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit was established in 1998. It is an interdepartmental unit, working in partnership with the criminal justice system departments, agencies, services and the 42 area criminal justice strategy committees to progress joint working and to take forward strategic planning, performance management and delivery across the whole of the criminal justice system. The Unit also works on improving the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system, including that of ethnic minority communities, and management of the criminal justice system reserve. The operating cost of the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit in 2001–02 is estimated at £0.8 million. There were 25 staff in post on 31 March 2002.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the Corporate Management Unit;
	(2)  what the cost of the Corporate Management Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Corporate Management Unit;
	(4)  when the Corporate Management Unit was established.

David Blunkett: The Corporate Management Unit was established in 1996 under the previous Conservative Administration and has two main functions. The unit supports research, development and statistics directorate (RDS) units including: planning the RDS work programme; managing its budget; undertaking procurement; and dealing with staffing issues (including training and accommodation). Well over half the unit's staff are employed in data collection for RDS's key statistical collections. There are 62 staff, and the total operating costs for 2001–02 were £2.75 million.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the Offenders and Corrections Unit;
	(2)  what the cost of the Offenders and Corrections Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  when the Offenders and Corrections Unit was established;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Offenders and Corrections Unit;

David Blunkett: The Offenders and Corrections Unit was established as a separate unit in 1996 under the previous Administration, to bring together responsibility for providing research, development and statistics for the prison and probation services and on offenders. The total operating costs for 2001–02 were £1.59 million. The number of staff employed in the unit is 66.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Accounting and Finance Unit was established;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Accounting and Finance Unit;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Accounting and Finance Unit;
	(4)  what the cost of the Accounting and Finance Unit was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The Accounting and Finance Unit (AFU) was established in April 1998 as a result of a reorganisation which brought together the work of two related units. Its function is to deliver financial and accounting management, advice and systems in support of the Home Office's aims and objectives. At 31 March 2002 the unit comprised 129 established staff in London and Liverpool. The estimated outturn operating costs were £4.1 million. The size of the Home Office budget for which AFU is responsible is £10.7 billion.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the Audit and Assurance Unit;
	(2)  what the cost of the Audit and Assurance Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  when the Audit and Assurance Unit was established;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Audit and Assurance Unit.

David Blunkett: The Audit and Assurance Unit (AAU) was formed in April 1998, replacing the former internal audit unit. It performs a statutory function to provide an independent and objective opinion to the Accounting Officer on risk management, control and governance.
	AAU supports the Accounting Officer in meeting his responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances and for the efficient and effective use of all the available resources including value for money.
	AAU also provides these services to 11 executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. In 2001–02 it has undertaken 180 separate audit reviews.
	The outturn cost of AAU for the financial year 2001–02 is £1.4 million. As at 31 March 2002, AAU employed 27 staff.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Immigration and Community Care Unit was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Immigration and Community Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the Immigration and Community Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Immigration and Community Unit.

David Blunkett: The Immigration and Community Unit was established in 1996 under the previous Conservative Administration. The unit provides a research and statistics service for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Community Policy Directorate. It publishes statistics about the control of immigration, asylum, citizenship, scientific procedures and research reports (to be found on the research development and statistics (RDS) website). There are 54 staff employed in the unit and the total operating costs for 2001–02 were £1.57 million.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what is the remit of the Correctional Policy Unit;
	(2)  when the Correctional Policy Unit was established;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Correctional Policy Unit;
	(4)  what the cost of the Correctional Policy Unit was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The Correctional Policy Unit was established in summer 1998, primarily to support the creation of the National Probation Service.
	Its remit now is to monitor performance across the correctional services and identify ways to bridge gaps in provision for offenders as they move from prison to community supervision and in provision for women offenders. The Unit also sponsors and supports the inspectorates of prisons and probation and manages the contracts for the operators of electronic equipment used to monitor offenders in the community. In the financial year 2001–02 the Correctional Policy Unit's costs were £1.37 million. There were 39 members of staff in post on 31 March 2002.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the Commercial and Procurement Unit;
	(2)  when the Commercial and Procurement Unit was established;
	(3)  what the cost of the Commercial and Procurement Group Resources Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the cost of the Commercial and Procurement Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(5)  how many members of staff are employed by the Commercial and Procurement Unit.

David Blunkett: The Commercial and Procurement Group Resources Unit does not exist.
	The Commercial and Procurement Unit was formed in April 1998, from previously existing units following an internal reorganisation.
	Its remit is to provide the Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies with central commercial expertise, and to ensure the consistent application of policy, procedures, legislation, and best practice.
	The forecast cost of the Commercial and Procurement Unit for the 2001–02 financial year is £1.05 million. As at 31 March 2002 there were 26 staff in post.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the Police Leadership and Powers Unit;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Police Resource Unit;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Science and Technology Unit;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Performance and Strategic Management Unit;
	(5)  how many members of staff are employed by the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary;
	(6)  how many members of staff are employed by the Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit;
	(7)  how many members of staff are employed by the Police Resource Unit.

David Blunkett: The number of staff employed on 31 March 2002 in each of these units is shown in the table. These figures include staff employed on a temporary basis.
	
		
			 Unit Number of staff employed(9) 
		
		
			 Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit 80 
			 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 114 
			 Performance and Strategic Management Unit(10) 218 
			 Police Leadership and Powers Unit 45 
			 Police Resources Unit 56 
			 Science and Technology Unit 58 
		
	
	(9) As at 31 March 2002
	(10) includes 10 regional Crime Reduction Teams

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit.

David Blunkett: The Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit was established in its present form after the machinery of Government changes following the general election in June 2001. The Unit was formerly called the Animals, Byelaws and Coroners Unit and had additional responsibilities that were transferred to other Government Departments.
	The Unit is responsible for the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (including the costs of the Animal Procedures Committee). It also carries out the Home Secretary's functions in relation to coroners, burial law and related matters.
	The provisional outturn operating costs of the Animal Procedures and Coroners Unit for the financial year April 2001 to March 2002 were approximately £1.64 million. On 31 March 2002 there were 40 members of staff in post in the Unit.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the Mental Health Unit;
	(2)  what the cost of the Mental Health Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Mental Health Unit;
	(4)  when the Mental Health Unit was established.

David Blunkett: The Home Office has exercised functions in respect of mentally disordered offenders since 1800, when the Criminal Lunatics Act was passed. The Mental Health Unit was established in its present form in 1996 under the previous Conservative Administration. It succeeded units which have existed since 1959 when the Mental Health Act created responsibilities for the Home Secretary in the management of restricted patients. This was also legislation passed by a Conservative Government.
	The Mental Health Unit:
	assists me in the discharge of my duties and powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Acts 1964 and 1991; and
	develops new services for those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered, and manages a research programme on their assessment and treatment.
	In the year to 31 December 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available 1 ) the Mental Health Unit:
	transferred 271 restricted patients from a Prison Service establishment;
	transferred 393 restricted patients from a Prison Service establishment to hospital while unsentenced or untried;
	transferred 30 restricted patients to hospital under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act;
	conditionally discharged 23 restricted patients; and
	recalled 60 patients to hospital after conditional discharge.
	The estimated outturn operating costs of the unit are £2.06 million. On 31 March 2002 the Mental Health Unit employed the full time equivalent of 62 staff.
	1 Statistics of Mentally Disordered Offenders, Home Office statistical Bulletin 22/01

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Criminal Justice Integration Programme was established;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Criminal Justice Integration Unit;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Criminal Justice Integration Programme;
	(4)  when the Criminal Justice Integration Unit was established;
	(5)  what the remit is of the Criminal Justice Integration Programme;
	(6)  what the cost of the Criminal Justice Integration Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(7)  what the cost of the Criminal Justice Integration Programme was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The Criminal Justice Integration Unit was established in August 2001 and the Criminal Justice Integration Programme was established in September 2001. They work closely together, sharing resources, to deliver the over-arching remit of Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT). That is, to ensure the delivery of timely and cost-effective information technology (IT) in support of a modern joined-up criminal justice system. CJIT will build on the existing criminal justice organisations' IT investments and link their case management systems, progressively, using Government- standard services and standards. At 31 March 2002, the number of staff in post in CJIT was 38. The cost of CJIT in the last financial year (2001–02) was £3.61 million.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the European and International Unit was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the European and International Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the European and International Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the European and International Unit.

David Blunkett: A European Communities Unit was set up in May 1991 under the previous Conservative Administration. The present title (European and International Unit) was adopted in April 2000.
	The unit:
	provides a focus for the co-ordination of Home Office involvement in the European Union (EU), through development of the Home Office strategic approach to the EU and contributing to the development of policy and negotiating positions in a total, for the year ending 31 March 2002, of 56 Justice and Home Affairs Councils, meetings of the Article 36 Committee and meetings of the Enlargement Working Group;
	advises other areas of the Home Office on EU policy and procedural issues in the field of justice and home affairs;
	maintains and enhances the effectiveness of the mechanisms by which the Home Office ensures that parliamentary scrutiny obligations are fulfilled;
	provides a focus for Home Office interests in the work of the G8 and other non-EU international organisations where a single policy focus does not exist; and
	co-ordinates briefing and practical arrangements for international multiple-focus visits to/by Home Office Ministers and senior officials.
	The unit cost £0.78 million in the 12 months ending 31 March 2002. It has 24 members of staff.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the Corporate Support Services Unit;
	(2)  when the Corporate Support Services Unit was established;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Corporate Support Services Unit;
	(4)  what the cost of the Corporate Support Services Unit was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The Corporate Support Services Unit (CSSU) was established on 1 April 1996 under the previous Conservative Government and is responsible for the Mail and Messenger Service, the Text Processing Service, the Health and Safety Service and the Health and Welfare Service. The unit also has responsibility for the maintenance of appropriate security and business continuity arrangements within the Home Office. The estimated outturn for operating costs in the financial year 2001–02 was £6.18 million. As at 31 March 2002 there were 159 staff in post.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the farm policy unit;
	(2)  when the farm policy unit was established;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the farm policy unit;
	(4)  what the cost of the farm policy unit was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: I presume the hon. Member is asking about the family policy unit. The family policy unit was established in February 1999 to co-ordinate family policy across Government, under the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Active Communities and Family Issues, and manage the family support grant to voluntary sector organisations working to improve support for parents.
	In the 12 months to 31 March 2002, provisional outturn operating costs of the unit were some £0.48 million. 13 staff were in post as at 31 March 2002.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Human Resources and Equality Unit was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Human Resources and Equality Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the Home Office Sports and Social Association Organisation was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Home Office Sports and Social Association Organisation;
	(5)  what the remit is of the Home Office Sports and Social Association Organisation;
	(6)  what the cost of the Human Resources and Equality Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(7)  what the remit is of the Human Resources and Equality Unit.

David Blunkett: The Human Resources and Equality Unit was created in its current form in May 1999, taking over functions from various other units at that time. It is responsible for pay and industrial relations for the Home Office, excluding the Prison Service and other agencies; human resource planning; diversity issues among Home Office staff; and for helping to modernise personnel systems in use across the Home Office.
	On 31 March 2002 the number of staff employed in the Unit was 45. Another 16 posts are occupied by full-time trade union officials.
	The Unit's forecast outturn operating costs, including the trade unions side, in the financial year 2001–02 were £2.08 million.
	The Unit also has responsibility for the Home Office Sports and Social Association which was formed by staff in about 1924. The Association's remit is to encourage and co-ordinate sport and social activities among staff by means of associated clubs and societies. The Association is affiliated to the Civil Service Sports Council.
	The Association does not employ any staff. However the Home Office, since at least 1970, has provided it with a secretary and one assistant. The cost to the Home Office of the Association in 2001–02 was £37,000, which covers the cost of the Secretariat. All money administered by the Association is received from staff through the Civil Service Sports Council and profits from a monthly work place lottery.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the Science and Technology Unit;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Police Leadership and Powers Unit;
	(3)  what the remit is of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Performance and Strategic Management Unit;
	(5)  what the remit is of the Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit;
	(6)  what the remit is of the Police Resource Unit;
	(7)  what the remit is of the Police Resource Unit.

David Blunkett: As part of the Policing and Crime Reduction Group, all these units contribute to reducing crime and the fear of crime. Their main responsibilities are as follows:
	Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit
	This unit is responsible for:
	Developing strategies against disorder and anti-social behaviour, violent crime, vehicle crime, burglary and other property crime, road crime, youth crime, rural crime and fear of crime;
	Policy on the maintenance and disclosure of criminal records;
	The promotion of information sharing in order to combat crime;
	The administration of controls on firearms;
	The payment of grants totalling £6.7 million in the year ending 31 March 2002 for a range of crime reduction initiatives and for the firearms compensation scheme. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
	HM Inspectorate of Constabulary is responsible for carrying out inspections of police forces under the Police Act 1964. It seeks to promote collaboration between forces and to encourage the application of up-to-date techniques and the results of central police research. The Inspectorate also provides advice to the Secretary of State and the Home Office on professional police matters.
	Performance and Strategic Management Unit
	This unit is responsible for:
	Developing and maintaining the constitutional arrangements for policing and monitoring performance;
	Supporting regional crime reduction teams and local partnerships;
	Increasing the public availability of police officers and support staff;
	Managing the Group's performance monitoring systems and budget;
	The payment of grants totalling £162.4 million in the year ending 31 March 2002 for a range of crime reduction initiatives. Police Leadership and Powers Unit
	This unit is responsible for developing policy on:
	Police leadership, police powers and procedures, and police relations with the public;
	The training of police officers and support staff;
	Police complaints and discipline and to combat police corruption;
	Sponsoring the Police Complaints Authority and the Central Police Training and Development Authority. Police Resources Unit
	This unit is responsible for:
	Developing the policy relating to police resource issues;
	Allocating and monitoring the use of public money provided to the police, including the payment of grants totalling £4,290 million in the year ending 31 March 2002 to police forces and to police associations;
	Developing the policy relating to police employment and conditions of service. Science and Technology Unit
	This unit is responsible for:
	Advising on the exploitation of science and technology by the police and in crime prevention;
	Managing the DNA Expansion Programme;
	Acting as the sponsor unit for the Police Information Technology Organisation and the National Identification Service;
	Supporting the Forensic Science Service;
	Overseeing the provision of forensic pathology services in England and Wales;
	Regulating the police radio frequency service;
	Developing policy on the police use of aircraft;
	Providing policy advice on the development of police equipment and software.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Finance and Planning Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Finance and Planning Unit;
	(3)  when the Finance and Planning Unit was established;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Finance and Planning Unit.

David Blunkett: The Finance and Planning Unit was established in April 1996 under the previous Conservative Government, to provide advice on business planning in support of the aims and objectives of the newly created Organised and International Crime Directorate, and to manage the Directorate's budget. The provisional outturn operating costs of the unit in 2001–02 were £0.2 million. As at 31 March 2002 there were five staff in post.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the Business Support Unit;
	(2)  what the cost is of the Business Support Unit;
	(3)  when the Business Support Unit was established;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Business Support Unit.

David Blunkett: The Business Support Unit was established in November 1999 from two previous units to provide a central focus for all of Communication Directorate's administrative support and resource management/planning activities and manage the long-term strategic Customer Communications Foundation Project (CCFP) as well as a small number of related tactical/ short-term projects designed to improve the Home Office's performance in dealing with Ministers' cases, public correspondence, and telephone inquiries. The Business Support Unit's provisional operating cost outturn for the financial year ending 31 March 2002 is £0.8 million. The number of staff on 31 March was 19.5.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Sentencing and Offences Unit was established;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Sentencing and Offences Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the Sentencing and Offences Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Sentencing and Offences Unit.

David Blunkett: The Sentencing and Offences Unit (SOU) was formed in 1996 under the previous Conservative Government when parts of the previous C1 division (dealing with sentencing policy) and C4 division (dealing with policy on criminal offences) were merged. The Sentencing and Offences Unit reviews sentencing policy and aspects of the criminal law, including ensuring that the criminal law is sufficient for the purposes of opposing criminal activities and that there are appropriate penalties available to the courts. It scrutinises all proposals for new offences and penalties to ensure their proper formulation.
	Major areas of work in which the unit is at present engaged include the preparation of final proposals for the comprehensive reform of sex offences; proposals to strengthen the Sex Offenders Act 1997; a review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; preparation of final proposals for reform of the Offences Against the Person Act and the law on involuntary manslaughter and on corruption; and the implementation of sections 1–11 of Part I of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (on the spot penalties for disorderly behaviour).
	The unit is responsible for a large amount of public and ministerial correspondence and parliamentary business on all aspects of sentencing and offences. During the period from 1 October 2001 to 31 March 2002 SOU replied to 766 items of public correspondence and 335 Ministers' cases.
	The provisional outturn operating costs in the financial year 2001–02 are expected to be approximately £1.4 million. This includes the cost of the secretariat for the Sentencing Advisory Panel.
	There are 36 members of staff employed in the Sentencing and Offences Unit.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Criminal Justice Reform Unit was established;
	(2)  what the cost of the Criminal Justice Reform Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Criminal Justice Reform Unit;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Criminal Justice Reform Unit.

David Blunkett: The Criminal Justice Reform Unit was established in September 2001 to take forward the implementation of the Home Office aspects of Sir Robin Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts, which was published in October 2001.
	The costs were not separated out until recently, and are around £35,000 a month.
	On 31 March 2002 there were 14 members of staff in post.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Group Resources Unit was established;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Group Resources Unit;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Group Resources Unit.

David Blunkett: The Group Resources Unit was established in April 1998, following an internal reorganisation, to manage the budget of the Planning, Finance and Performance Group, and support the senior management of the Group in achieving the objectives set out in the Group's Business Plan and in taking forward the modernisation programme. As at 31 March 2002 there were four staff in post. The estimated outturn operating costs are £0.79 million.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Police Resource Unit was established;
	(2)  when the Police Leadership and Powers Unit was established;
	(3)  when the Science and Technology Unit was established;
	(4)  when the Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit was established;
	(5)  when the Police Resource Unit was established;
	(6)  when the Performance and Strategic Management Unit was established.

David Blunkett: These units were established in their current form in June 2000 as part of an internal re-organisation of the Policing and Crime Reduction Group.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit was established;
	(2)  what the cost of the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Crime and Criminal Justice Unit.

David Blunkett: The Crime and Criminal Justice Unit was established as a separate unit in 1996 under the previous Conservative Administration, to provide wide ranging research, development and statistics on patterns of crime, the prosecution process, court procedures, youth offending and sentencing to support policy development. The operating costs for 2001–02 were £1.70 million. The number of staff employed in the unit is 52.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Business Support and Communication Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  when the Business Support and Communication Unit was established;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Business Support and Communication Unit;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Business Support and Communication Unit;
	(5)  what the cost of the Business Support and Communication Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(6)  when the Business Support and Communication Unit was established;
	(7)  how many members of staff are employed by the Business Support and Communication Unit;
	(8)  what the remit is of the Business Support and Communication Unit.

David Blunkett: A secretariat was established in 1996 under the previous Conservative Administration to support the newly created Corporate Resources Directorate. That is now the Corporate Development and Services Group (CDSG), and its support unit was renamed the Business Support and Communication Unit in February 2001. It provides budget management, business planning and other management support services to CDSG, and advice and support to CDSG managers and staff in communicating its policies to the wider Home Office and within CDSG itself. The cost of the Business Support and Communications Unit in the last 12 months was £0.24 million. There are seven staff in the unit.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Buildings and Estate Management Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  when the Buildings and Estate Management Unit was established;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Buildings and Estate Management Unit;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Buildings and Estate Management Unit.

David Blunkett: The Building and Estate Management Unit was established in October 1995 under the previous Conservative Administration.
	The Unit's remit is to provide best value accommodation and related services that enable and support the achievement of the Home Office aims. This includes developing and promoting the Department's (non prisons) property strategy; delivering specialist property and procurement services; developing and promoting the Department's sustainable development policies; and managing the central London headquarters estate and planned relocation to the new headquarters building at 2 Marsham Street.
	As at 31 March 2002 it employed 44 staff. The projected operating costs for the financial year 2001–02 is £1.57 million.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Sirius Programme Management Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  when the Sirius Programme Management Unit was established;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Sirius Programme Management Unit;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Sirius Programme Management Unit.

David Blunkett: The Sirius Programme Management Unit was established as a separate unit in February 2001 to manage the Sirius Programme, which provides information technology and telephones to the core Home Office and business and consultancy services to the core Home Office. The Sirius programme comprises three initial business change projects, which cover financial and personnel administration and customer communications.
	The provisional outturn operating costs of the Sirius Programme Management Unit for the financial year April 2001 to March 2002 were £3.3 million.
	The number of staff employed in the Sirius Programme Management Unit was 27. In February 2002, the 11 staff responsible for the Home Office modernisation programme and the business and consultancy services transferred to another unit.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Judicial Co-operation Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Judicial Co-operation Unit;
	(3)  when the Judicial Co-operation Unit was established;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Judicial Co-operation Unit.

David Blunkett: The Judicial Co-operation Unit (JCU), previously known as C2 Division, was formed in 1991 under the previous Conservative Administration following the implementation of the 1990 Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act and 1989 Extradition Act. Previously the functions, under earlier legislation, were undertaken by the Foreign Office.
	JCU has three main functions:
	The United Kingdom (UK) Central Authority for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) produced 2,900 incoming (from abroad) and 1,700 outgoing (from UK to foreign authorities) requests last year. It operates on behalf of the Secretary of State under the 1990 Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act.
	The Extradition Section processed 125 incoming and 83 outgoing requests for extradition last year, under the terms of the 1989 Extradition Act. The section also deals with extradition policy.
	The International Policy team negotiates, at official level, on proposals for improved judicial co-operation and criminal law co-operation between countries. Much of the work is in the European Union (EU), where it works to progress the relevant conclusions on the Tampere Council. It also works in United Nations, Council of Europe, Commonwealth and G8 fora, dealing with proposed international conventions, money-laundering and asset confiscation issues.
	In addition, at present, it is running on behalf of the EU two projects for candidate countries on judicial co-operation and money laundering.
	The cost of the Judicial Co-operation Unit for the year 2001–02 was £2.4 million. On 31 March 2002, there were 41 staff employed in JCU, plus four staff working on twinning projects for the candidate countries and paid for by European Union funds.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Performance and Strategic Management Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  what the cost of the Police Leadership and Powers Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  what the cost of the Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the cost of the Science and Technology Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(5)  what the cost of the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary was in the last 12 months;
	(6)  what the cost of the Police Resource Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(7)  what the cost of the Police Resource Unit was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: Provisional information on operating costs for the year ending 31 March 2002 for each of these units is shown in the table.
	
		£million 
		
			 Unit Operating costs(11) 
		
		
			 Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit 1.66 
			 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary(12) 5.66 
			 Performance and Strategic Management Unit (London and the Regions) 4.91 
			 Police Leadership and Powers Unit 1.32 
			 Police Resources Unit 1.45 
			 Science and Technology Unit 2.20 
		
	
	(11) Year ending 31 March 2002.
	(12) Including seconded police officers.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Policing Organised Crime Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  when the Policing Organised Crime Unit was established;
	(3)  what the remit is of the Policing Organised Crime Unit;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Policing Organised Crime Unit.

David Blunkett: The Policing Organised Crime Unit (POCU) was established on 1 April 1996 under the previous Conservative Government. It is responsible for developing a strategic response to the various threats from serious and organised crime; in particular the reduction of serious and organised crime as measured by the disruption of organised criminal enterprises. POCU is the sponsor unit for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. It is providing the United Kingdom link to the European Schengen Information System and co-ordinates Home Office interests in international police and drugs co-operation work (through work related to Europol, Interpol, G8, European Union, Council of Europe and the United Nations) and in both national and international aspects of police witness protection.
	The provisional outturn operating costs of the Policing Organised Crime Unit for the financial year April 2001 to March 2002 were £1.12 million. In March 2002 there were 25 staff in post.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit;
	(3)  what the cost of the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

David Blunkett: The Policing and Reducing Crime Unit was established as a separate unit in 1998. The unit conducts the Home Office's research on how to reduce crime and fear of crime, it improves policing, and it evaluates projects trying to reduce crime. There are 88 staff (including 27 in the offices of the regional Crime Reduction Teams). The provisional outturn operating costs for the financial year 2001–02 were £3.52 million.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the national police training unit;
	(2)  what the remit is of the national police training unit;
	(3)  what the cost is of the national police training unit.

David Blunkett: The Home Office national police training unit was responsible for providing police training and facilities for the provision of police training, promoting the value of the provision of police training, and giving advice and assistance on the provision of police training to others. It became a non-departmental public body—the Central Training and Development Authority (Centrex)—under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Centrex was established on 1 April 2002.
	The outturn revenue costs for 2001–02 are expected to be in the region of £73 million.
	As at 31 March 2002, a total of 1,176 staff were in post, including 553 seconded police staff.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the Active Community Unit;
	(2)  when the Active Community Unit was established;
	(3)  what the cost of the Active Community Unit was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Active Community Unit.

David Blunkett: The Active Community Unit was established in 1999. It superseded the Voluntary and Community Unit which, with its predecessors, had been a unit in the Home Office since the early 1970s.
	The Active Community Unit contributes to the delivery of Home Office aim 7: "To support strong and active communities in which people of all races and backgrounds are valued and participate on equal terms." It is also responsible for the achievement of the Government's target to make substantial progress by 2004 towards one million more people being actively involved in their communities.
	It does this by working across Government to: take forward a range of initiatives designed to enable local people to make a positive contribution to their communities; develop productive partnerships between Government and the voluntary and community sector; develop a modern legal and regulatory framework for the voluntary and community sector.
	Achievements in 2001 and 2002 include: establishing the Experience Corps initiative to encourage more people aged 50 and over to remain or become active in their communities; providing grants totalling £48.5 million to various voluntary and community organisations and ensuring that the resources are effectively utilised; launching Black and Minority Ethnic and Volunteering Codes of Good Practice supporting the 'Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector in England'; leading a cross- departmental initiative to develop an action plan to rationalise and simplify access by community groups to Government small grants programmes.
	Operating cost expenditure for the Active Community Unit in 2001–02 was £2.1 million. On 31 March 2002, the Active Community Unit had 42 staff in post.

Units

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Economics and Resource Analysis Unit was established;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Economics and Resource Analysis Unit;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the Economics and Resource Analysis Unit;
	(4)  what the cost of the Economics and Resource Analysis Unit was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The Economics and Resource Analysis Unit was established in its present form in 1998. The unit is responsible for all economic advice and much of the quantitative modelling work that underpins Home Office policy. Major areas of work include:
	policy modelling of the Criminal Justice system (including quantification of costs and benefits);
	economic analysis of alternative policy options (including assessment of crime intervention strategies and programmes in terms of returns of tax payers' money);
	economics of migration and asylum (including assessment of impact of migration and asylum policy on the economy);
	efficiency and effectiveness of policing (including funding formula for allocating resources between forces).
	The total operating costs for 2001–02 were £0.80 million. The number of staff employed in the unit is 22.

Prison and Probation Ombudsman

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the prison and probation ombudsman was established;
	(2)  what the remit is of the prison and probation ombudsman;
	(3)  how many members of staff are employed by the prison and probation ombudsman;
	(4)  what the cost of the prison and probation ombudsman was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The office of prisons ombudsman for England and Wales was established in 1994 under the previous Conservative Administration following the report by Lord Woolf and Sir Stephen Tumim on Prison Disturbances (Cm 1456) and the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" (Cm 1647). The remit was extended on 1 September 2001 to encompass complaints both from prisoners and those supervised by the National Probation Service (NPS). The office was re-titled prisons and probation ombudsman.
	The prisons and probation ombudsman is independent of the Prison Service and National Probation Service. The ombudsman is appointed by the Home Secretary and reports to him. The ombudsman investigates complaints from prisoners, and those on license or otherwise under probation supervision, regarding aspects of their treatment. Complainants must first have sought redress through use of the internal Prison Service or NPS complaints systems. The number of complaints has increased rapidly over the last two years. In 2001–02, 1,100 complaints were investigated.
	The ombudsman submits an annual report to the Home Secretary which the Home Secretary lays before Parliament.
	Provisional outturn operating costs for the financial year April 2001 to March 2002 were £1.66 million. The unit employs 41 members of staff.

Strategic Policy Team

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the Strategic Policy Team;
	(2)  when the Strategic Policy Team was established;
	(3)  what the cost of the Strategic Policy Team was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Strategic Policy Team.

David Blunkett: The Strategic Policy Team was established in August 2000. Its role is to support Ministers and the Home Office Board by developing overall strategy, and individual policies and cross cutting work. Estimated outturn operating costs in 2001–02 were £0.9 million. The Strategic Policy Team is a mix of civil servants, secondees and a small number of people with specialist skills on short-term contracts. There are usually between 20 and 25 members in post.

Animals (Scientific Procedure) Inspectorate

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  when the Animals (Scientific Procedure) Inspectorate was established;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Animals (Scientific Procedure) Inspectorate;
	(3)  what the cost of the Animals (Scientific Procedure) Inspectorate was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  what the remit is of the Animals (Scientific Procedure) Inspectorate.

David Blunkett: The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate was established on 1 January 1987 under the previous Conservative Administration.
	The statutory functions of the Inspectorate are set out in section 18 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
	"18 (2) It shall be the duty of an inspector:
	(a) to advise the Secretary of State on applications for personal and project licences, on requests for their variation or revocation and on their periodical review;
	(b) to advise him on applications for certificates under this Act and on requests for their variation or revocation;
	(c) to visit places where regulated procedures are carried out for the purpose of determining whether those procedures are authorised by the requisite licences and whether the conditions of those licences are being complied with;
	(d) to visit designated establishments for the purpose of determining whether the conditions of the certificates in respect of those establishments are being complied with;
	(e) to report to the Secretary of State any case in which any provision of this Act or any condition of a licence or certificate under this Act has not been or is not being complied with and to advise him on the action to be taken in any such case.
	18 (3) If an inspector considers that a protected animal is undergoing excessive suffering he may require it to be immediately killed by a method appropriate to the animal under Schedule 1 to this Act or by such other method as may be authorised by any personal licence held by the person to whom the requirement is addressed".
	In addition, the Inspectorate is also involved in a number of initiatives to continuously raise awareness of opportunities to implement the three 'R's (of reduction, refinement and replacement) in animal experimentation, to promote a 'culture of care', and to identify and disseminate best practice.
	For the year 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 the provisional outturn operating costs of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate were approximately £1.55 million.
	A total of 25 staff are currently employed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.

National Technical Assistance Centre

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by the National Technical Assistance Centre;
	(2)  what the cost of the National Technical Assistance Centre was in the last 12 months;
	(3)  what the remit is of the National Technical Assistance Centre;
	(4)  when the National Technical Assistance Centre was established.

David Blunkett: The head of the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC) was appointed in March 2001 in response to the 1999 Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report "Encryption and Law Enforcement".
	NTAC will provide assistance to the investigations in the United Kingdom intelligence and law enforcement agencies; by providing techniques for lawful interception of modern multimedia communications, and by processing those lawfully intercepted communications to provide intelligible material to the intercepting agencies. NTAC also provides techniques to derive intelligible evidence from lawfully seized computer data.
	Since the summer of 2001 NTAC has been operational in its role in respect of lawfully seized computer data. Operational work in respect of lawfully intercepted communications is planned to commence in late summer 2002.
	The provisional outturn for 2001–02 was £1.9 million. NTAC currently employs 33 staff.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many members of staff are employed by HM Inspectorate of Prisons;
	(2)  what the remit is of HM Inspectorate of Prisons;
	(3)  what the cost of HM Inspectorate of Prisons was in the last 12 months.

David Blunkett: The Inspectorate of Prisons was set up as an independent body in 1981 under the previous Conservative administration. Its remit is to inspect and report the treatment and conditions of those in Prison Service custody, and Immigration Service detention. In the financial year 2001–02 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons costs were £1.89 million. There were 26 full-time members of staff and eight consultants in post on 31 March 2002.

Financial Crime Team

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the Financial Crime Team was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  what the remit is of the Financial Crime Team;
	(3)  when the Financial Crime Team was established;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the Financial Crime Team.

David Blunkett: The Financial Crime Team was set up in April 2000 to secure delivery of the Government's policy on the recovery of criminal assets which is a priority for this Government. In particular, the Financial Crime Team is responsible for:
	the management and, if approved, implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Bill;
	the establishment of the proposed Assets Recovery Agency and Financial Investigation of Excellence;
	monitoring and development of the Asset Recovery Strategy; and
	the administration of the Recovered Assets fund and of a separate grant scheme for police financial investigators.
	The estimated operating costs of the team for the financial year 2001–02 were £0.41 million. 18 members of staff were in post on 31 March 2002.

Legal Adviser's Branch

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the remit is of the Legal Adviser's Branch;
	(2)  how many members of staff are employed by the Legal Adviser's Branch;
	(3)  what the cost of the Legal Adviser's Branch was in the last 12 months;
	(4)  when the Legal Adviser's Branch was established.

David Blunkett: The first permanent Home Office Counsel was appointed in 1835 but the current Legal Adviser's Branch (LAB) can be said to date from the appointment, in 1869, of the first Assistant Under-Secretary (Legal). LAB provides specific legal services to other parts of the Home Office, and a similar service to the Northern Ireland Office. The cost of LAB in the last 12 months was £2.76 million. As at 31 March 2002 there were 57 members of staff employed.

National Probation Service

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what the cost of the National Probation Service was in the last 12 months;
	(2)  when the National Probation Service was established;
	(3)  what the remit is of the National Probation Service;
	(4)  how many members of staff are employed by the National Probation Service.

David Blunkett: The National Probation Service came into being in April 2001 when the existing 54 local services were disbanded and 42 boards created as part of a new national service to raise standards and improve performance. For example, at least one accredited behaviour programme is now available in all areas and during 2001–02 17,177 offenders were placed on these programmes by the courts.
	The National Probation Service is a unified national service for England and Wales, and was established by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. It is responsible for giving courts assistance in determining the appropriate sentence, and in making other decisions, for people charged with or convicted of offences. It is further responsible for the supervision and rehabilitation of such people, including giving effect to community orders, supervising people released from prison on licence, and providing accommodation in approved premises.
	In doing all this the National Probation Service has the aims of protecting the public, reducing re-offending, ensuring the proper punishment of offenders in the community, ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public, and rehabilitating offenders.
	The latest forecast expenditure for the financial year 2001–02 is £642 million. The accounts for the year ended 31 March 2002 will not be completed until October 2002.
	As of June 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 15,401 members of staff (full-time equivalents) employed by the National Probation Service in probation areas.
	The National Probation Directorate employed 205 members of staff (full-time equivalents) at the end of January 2002, when the latest figures were collected.

Departmental Directorates

Oliver Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which directorates and units of his Department cited on his Department's website at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/direct.htm were created after May 1997.

David Blunkett: I keep the organisations of all parts of the Home Office under close review to ensure that we are able to secure the ambitious agenda set for the Department in our delivery contracts and public service agreements.
	The following directorates and units were created after May 1997: Criminal Justice Integration Unit and Programme Office, Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit, Strategic Policy Team, Police Reform and Bill Unit, Police Standards Unit, Financial Crime Team, Sirius Programme Management Unit.
	The following units were created but subsumed functions and staff previously located elsewhere in the Department: Family Policy Unit, Correctional Policy Unit, Criminal Justice Reform Unit, Action Against Crime and Disorder Unit, Crime Reduction Programme, Police Leadership and Powers Unit, National Technical Assistance Centre, Better Letters Team, Information Management and Technology Unit.
	The following directorates and units acquired new or altered names in internal reorganisation which has been undertaken since May 1997: Business Support Unit, Marketing Communications Unit, Internal Communications Unit, Information Services Unit, Community Policy Directorate (formerly Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate prior to machinery of Government changes), Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (formerly Prisons Ombudsman), Organised Crime, Drugs and International Group (formerly Organised and International Crime Directorate), European and International Unit, Policing Organised Crime Unit, Accounting and Finance Unit, Audit and Assurance Unit, Commercial and Procurement Unit, Group Resources Unit, Performance Delivery and Strategy Unit, Business Support and Communication Unit, Merseyside Personnel Management Unit, Human Resources and Equality Unit, Research Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) Corporate Management Unit, RDS Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, RDS Immigration and Community Unit, RDS Offenders and Corrections Unit, RDS Policing and Reducing Crime Unit (incorporating the former Police Research Group), RDS Communications Development Unit, RDS Economics and Resource Analysis Unit.
	The website also refers to units in the Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate which have been transferred to the Cabinet Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. These units were located in the Home Office before the machinery of Government changes of 8 June 2001. Questions concerning these units should now be addressed to the Secretaries of State for the Departments concerned.

Drug Treatment and Testing Orders

Paul Stinchcombe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been made since they were introduced; and what appraisal has been made of their effectiveness.

Bob Ainsworth: Between 1 October 2000, when the Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO) were rolled out to courts in England and Wales, and 31 March 2002, which is the latest month for which complete figures are available, 6,085 orders were made.
	Results of a one-year reconviction study following the pilot programme which ran between 1 October 1998 and 31 March 2000 will be available within the next few weeks and this will be followed by a further study at the two years' stage in spring 2003. Data from the Probation Criminality Survey, which will include information about offenders subject to DTTOs will be available later in the autumn.

Drug-related Crime

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the change in the amount of drug-related crime since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Ainsworth: holding answer 21 May 2002
	Levels of drug-related crime cannot be directly measured as no routine statistical data are collected on whether an offence may have been committed as a result of drug taking. However, the Home Office compiles research findings and statistics that provide indirect measures of drug-related crime.
	The NEW-ADAM research programme of interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police in 16 areas sheds some light on the links between drugs and crime, but cannot provide national trend data from 1997. Fieldwork was completed this year in eight areas originally visited in 1999. Results from this project, showing the change in drug use and crime among arrestees in these eight areas will be published later this year.
	We are currently reviewing the drugs strategy targets and progress against them, including those concerning drugs and crime, to ensure we still have the right balance and focus. As part of this review, we are undertaking work to improve our ability to track changes over time in drug-related crime. The outcome of the review will be announced before the summer recess.
	Information is collected on the number of drug offenders. The most recent figures were published on 17 May, in Home Office Statistical Bulletin Number 4/02 "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom, 2000", copies of which will be placed in the Library. These show that from 1997 to 2000 the number of drug offenders dealt with has fallen from 114,629 to 104,390.

Illegal Drugs

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates have been made by his Department of the street prices of illegal drugs in each year since 1990–91.

Bob Ainsworth: holding answer 21 May 2002
	The average prices for the main illegal drugs during the period 1990–2001 are given in the table.
	
		UK average drug prices 1990–2001 -- £
		
			   Amphetamine(13) Herbal cannabis(14) Cannabis resin(14) Cocaine(13) Crack(15) Heroin(13) Ecstasy(16) LSD(16) 
		
		
			 November 1990 13.8 59.3 91.8 87.0 25.4 90.0 18.8 4.2 
			 August 1991 12.8 67.8 84.8 84.6 22.4 89.8 19.6 4.3 
			 December 1992 12.9 63.6 91.8 86.0 26.0 91.0 20.5 4.1 
			 October 1993 12.0 96.5 96.5 80.0 23.0 90.0 17.5 4.0 
			 December 1994 12.0 95.0 100.0 65.0 20.0 75.0 13.0 3.8 
			 July 1995 11.0 95.0 100.0 80.0 20.0 88.0 15.0 4.2 
			 September 1996 10.5 91.0 114.0 69.0 20.0 72.0 12.0 3.0 
			 December 1997 10.0 95.0 97.0 71.0 20.0 74.0 11.0 3.5 
			 December 1998 10.0 91.0 93.0 77.0 20.0 74.0 11.0 3.5 
			 December 1999 10.0 89.0 100.0 63.0 20.0 65.0 11.0 3.9 
			 December 2000 9.0 82.0 85.0 65.0 23.0 70.0 9.0 3.3 
			 December 2001 9.0 80.0 77.0 60.0 21.0 63.0 7.0 3.4 
		
	
	(13) Per gram
	(14) Per ounce
	(15) Per 'rock', equivalent to 0.2 gram
	(16) Per dose
	Note:
	1. These prices are based on average purity levels and do not reflect the fluctuations in price which may occur within an area as the result of law enforcement action, other interruption of supply, or even over-supply. Prices may be inflated by 'cutting' drugs, and by selling under measures. Prices increase when smaller amounts such as £10 or £20 deals are sold.
	2. Data for the first half of the period are based on fewer observations and may be subject to greater uncertainty.
	Sources:
	National Co-ordination Unit, Her Majesty's Customs (data from 1990 to 1994), National Criminal Intelligence Service (data from 1995 to 2001).

Illegal Drugs

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the street price of crack cocaine in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Bob Ainsworth: holding answer 21 May 2002
	The National Criminal Intelligence Service collates information on street level prices of drugs. The average prices for 'crack' cocaine during the period 1996–2001 are given in the following table.
	I view the availability of crack cocaine with concern. I have established an expert group on the treatment of crack cocaine addiction and I am organising a conference to develop more effective solutions to the problems caused by crack cocaine.
	We are also working to ensure that routes into Britain for crack cocaine are shut down as effectively as possible. The total amount of cocaine (including crack) seized in 2000 rose to an all-time record of 3,970 kilograms, an increase of about one metric tonne on the previous year.
	
		United Kingdom average crack cocaine prices 1996–2001 -- £
		
			   Price(17) 
		
		
			 September 1996 20 
			 December 1997 20 
			 December 1998 20 
			 December 1999 20 
			 December 2000 23 
			 December 2001 21 
		
	
	(17) Per rock, equivalent to 0.2 gram
	Note:
	These prices are based on average purity levels and do not reflect the fluctuations in price that may occur within an area as the result of law enforcement action, other interruption of supply, or even over-supply. In addition to this, prices can be inflated by 'cutting' drugs, and by selling under measures.
	Source:
	National Criminal Intelligence Service